High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 16 July 2013.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I have a few preliminary announcements. Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during Committee sittings. Will they please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode. Copies of the memorandums that the Committee has received will be made available in the room.

It has been suggested that before we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill, a brief reminder about procedure may be useful. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room, and shows how the amendments selected for debate have been grouped. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called to speak first, and other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on the amendments. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I will again call the Member who moved the leading amendment, and before they sit down they will need to indicate whether they seek to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press another amendment in the group to a vote, they must let me know during their speech. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order the amendments are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper—something that has taken me a long time to learn.

Although this is a paving Bill of relatively narrow scope, the project it contemplates is wide ranging, and I and my co-Chair will bear that in mind. Nevertheless, I remind Members to adhere to the subject matter of the amendments under discussion. Further, we as Chairs will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following debates on the relevant amendments. I should tell Members at the start that as we have 10 groups under clause 1 covering a wide range of topics on each subdivision of clause 1, my co-Chair and I do not currently intend to have a separate stand part debate on clause 1. Similarly, a substantial number of amendments have been tabled to clause 2, so although there are only two groups, we do not propose to have a separate stand part debate on clause 2. However, if Members feel particularly strongly, they may approach me or my co-Chair informally and we will resolve the issue.

I and my fellow Chair do not intend to call starred amendments that have not been tabled with adequate notice. The required notice period in a Public Bill Committee is three working days, so amendments for Thursday must be tabled by the rise of the House today. I hope that that is helpful.

Clause 1 - Preparatory expenditure

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, after ‘expenditure’, insert

‘up to a limit of £50 million’.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 13, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

‘(1A) Any further expenditure shall be limited to tranches of £50 million (not including monies paid under any compensation scheme) each of which shall individually be approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.

Amendment 14, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert

‘No expenditure shall be incurred under this Act after a period of six months beginning with Royal Assent.’.

Amendment 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall make a statement to the House of Commons should agreed yearly budgets be exceeded, or should they be expected to be exceeded.’.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Welcome to the Chair on another lovely day, Mrs Brooke. The purpose of the amendments in my name and that of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) is to limit any expenditure to tranches of £50 million, so that when each tranche is spent, the Department must return to the House for permission to go on to the next £50 million. The original budget for spending by the Department and HS2 Ltd has already been grotesquely exceeded. The sums are enormous—not enormous in comparison with the £50 billion for the whole project, but not small sums.

In response to questions from the Select Committee on Public Accounts, the permanent secretary at the Department for Transport said,

“We are spending £370 million this year.”

Alison Munro of HS2 Ltd told the PAC,

“To date, High Speed Two Ltd has spent £234 million, until the end of the last financial year.”

We did not get a statement of how much the Department had spent so far, other than what it is spending this year. We did not get from the permanent secretary, and nor did the Public Accounts Committee get from the chief executive of HS2 Ltd, a statement of what is intended to be spent this year. Those are huge sums of money that have not previously been reported to Parliament. It seems to me and the right hon. Lady that it would be wholly appropriate for each tranche of £50 million to be reported to the House and its approval sought.

I emphasise that not one practical thing has been done with that money: no sod has been cut, no rail has been laid. It is all paperwork and computer work—all money spent either directly on administration, bureaucracy and planning within the Department for Transport, or within HS2 Ltd. A lot of it has been paid in fees to advisers who are now amending some of the advice they originally gave, so those sums have been mis-spent. It therefore seems wholly appropriate for the Department to have to report to the Commons every time the bill goes up by a further 50 million quid.

It is a lot of money. If we are to get value for money for the taxpayer out of that spending, we need to be able to log what is going on in £50 million bites. Each tranche of £50 million is a lot of money; it would build a couple of secondary schools, so it is not a trivial sum. I hope the Committee agrees with me. Government Members are rightly keen to ensure that taxpayers’ money is carefully spent and that the Government get value for money, so I hope they agree with the amendment.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the budget for HS2 has already in this Parliament increased from £773 million to at least £900 million, without a proper explanation of why that increase has come about?

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Yes, that is certainly the case. I can see why a lot of money is having to be spent. People in my constituency are having to spend a lot of money on the fees for advisers who originally gave advice about costs. Those self-same advisers are advising that the costs have gone up, without offering any explanation. The whole process seems out of control. I will come to that later in relation to other amendments.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I am sure my right hon. Friend shares my concern that the Government’s consultation exercise was found to be inadequate and unlawful. Has he asked any questions about the cost of re-running the consultation exercise, and how it might have increased the overall costs of HS2 in the preparation stage?

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I confess that I have not asked any such questions. Generally speaking, in Departments time costs money. My understanding is that the re-consultation on compensation that the courts required has not yet been published, and indeed will not be published for another two months. Presumably, unless people are just being bone idle or Ministers are trying to be difficult with the public, which I find hard to believe, people are still working on reformulating the erroneous compensation consultation document, in which case the Government will be spending even more money. The longer any of this drags on, the more money will be spent. For all I know, they may be consulting people in the City about how to come up with a proper compensation package.

Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South)

In the course of our evidence gathering, we heard many calls for property bonds and adequate compensation of residents and businesses along the line. I am wondering about the practicalities of asking for approval in £50 million increments as the project goes along. How would that square with paying adequate compensation to people along the line?

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

My understanding—I do not have the accurate figures in my head—is that about £50 million or £60 million has been set aside for compensation, of which about three and ninepence has been paid out. Perhaps the Minister will correct me.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

If it is helpful to the right hon. Gentleman, the amount paid out in compensation on properties so far is £49 million.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Can the Minister help us by saying how much was in the budget for it? My understanding—

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Order. We are not having a question and answer session. Perhaps you could more subtly invite a response from the Minister of State, Mr Dobson, but he will answer those questions when he speaks.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Let me put it this way: if the Minister wishes to intervene, my understanding is that a substantially bigger sum has been set aside for compensation, and it has not been paid out so far.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

To be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman, by definition, it will depend on how many people claim under existing schemes or any future scheme arising from the re-consultation on the compensation scheme, so at this stage I cannot give a clear-cut figure for how much the total compensation bill will be. We do not know how many people will apply, or what the exact final compensation scheme will consist of.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Again, my understanding is that the final compensation scheme will not be paid for out of those moneys; that sum was included in the calculations of the overall cost of the HS2 scheme, because even the Government estimate that it is likely to exceed £1.25 billion. That will not be paid out of those monies; the long-term compensation will be paid out of the overall cost of HS2.

There may be difficulties in having a sum as low as £50 million, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South suggested. Perhaps £100 million would be a better amount. I do not know, but I am absolutely convinced that if we pass this Bill we are signing a blank cheque, and I do not think it is the job of Parliament to sign blank cheques for anybody or anything, particularly a speculative and amateurish outfit such as HS2.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Does the right hon. Gentleman want to make any comments on amendment 14, given that they should be made at this stage?

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I do not.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Brooke. I will to speak to amendment 21, which is grouped with amendments 12, 13 and 14.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments on the concern about cost control. Amendment 21 would put a duty on the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House of Commons when agreed yearly budgets are or are expected to be exceeded. I feel that that allows a little more flexibility than is allowed by my right hon. Friend’s amendment.

The amendment relates closely to another, about quarterly reporting, that we have tabled and will debate later. My right hon. Friend made an important point, which is that when Parliament is being asked to approve expenditure of such significant sums and there seems to be potential for those sums to increase, public confidence that the money is being spent wisely is vital. That is even more important in the current economic climate, in which there is such a strain on public spending and so much pressure to reduce it. People will expect us to monitor any Government expenditure closely.

Let me be clear: the Labour party strongly supports the project and believe that a north-south rail line is vital. However, we feel that there is a need to ensure that all spending, in particular any unbudgeted increases, are subjected to close parliamentary scrutiny. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case: HS2's budget in this Parliament has increased from £773 million to at least £900 million, and Ministers have not adequately explained that increase.

My right hon. Friend did not speak very much about Euston station, although I know that the and his constituents are very worried. The costs of the initial design for Euston station were massively underestimated. As a result, we have a redesign that is still £400 million over the original budget, but as we heard in evidence last week from the leader of the London borough of Camden, Councillor Sarah Hayward, the redesign, which was brought forward by HS2 with little warning, is expected to have a much greater negative impact on the local community.

That redesign, like the additional tunnelling work introduced at various stages of the route, was announced with little clarity about the cost implications. The overall cost of the project has now increased by £10 billion, including contingency funds. That increase, which was announced during Second Reading, has led to real concern and scepticism on the part of a number of right hon. and hon. Members, and also perhaps the wider public.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My hon. Friend quite properly spells out her concerns. Does she agree with me that the concern about costs raised by our right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras and others is such that it is necessary to have some sort of controls and reporting, so that we do not have large increases with no explanation given not only to the House of Commons, but to the people outside?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a real expectation on the part of both Members of this House and the wider public that any unexpected increases in costs need to be properly explained, and the proposed arrangements are not sufficient for that.

Under the Bill the Secretary of State will have to make a statement on the project’s cost only once a year. It is a good idea to present a full annual report and we support that, but there is natural concern that news of exceeded budgets would be stored up until the date of that report. Hon. Members will be aware that the first date for reporting is not until 2015. Our amendment would establish a mechanism requiring the Secretary of State to make a statement should such budget increases occur, or be expected to occur, in advance of the annual statement—it is simply a case of keeping the House updated. An analogy might be how people deal with bank statements: we do not wait until the end of the month to see how much we have spent; we check the account balance on a cash machine, and if we are going to have problems, we might speak to our significant other about that. That is a normal way of controlling budgets—keeping people updated, rather than waiting until the end of a control period.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Does my hon. Friend feel that bringing in such a mechanism will help the project to go forward with support of everybody across the country? It is a controversial project and people need reassurance, and the proposed measure would be a more proactive way of giving assurances on finance than the current reactive approach.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

My hon. Friend is exactly right. As we know from our evidence sessions last week and from reading press reports, there is real concern in the country.

The project is controversial, in part because some wonder whether it is the right use of public money to achieve the outcomes set out by the Government. There has been criticism of their ability so far to make the case for the high-speed rail line and the objectives set out in their statements. Hon. Members will be aware of the criticisms made by the National Audit Office in its recent report on High Speed 2’s progress. The NAO felt that insufficient evidence had been presented to show that the project would meet the objectives of developing additional capacity, the wider economic benefits such as rebalancing the economy between north and south, and our aspiration for environmental benefits. It is particularly important that we have good reporting and early warning of any problems in the budgets or any excess spending, now that annual budgets have been set out up to 2020-21. Parliament should know as soon as possible whether those budgets will be exceeded, owing to either unforeseen costs or additions to the route.

I am not necessarily against changes to the route. During a consultation period—we just concluded the consultation on the draft environmental assessment—if the Government are consulting properly on issues such as compensation, it is absolutely right they have the ability to change their mind and make amendments. However, if they make changes to the project plan and any additions to the route, they need to set out clearly the additional costs, and not simply wait until the end of a reporting period to do that. That is required for effective scrutiny.

In evidence last week, the chief executive of HS2 Ltd said that she was 95% certain that the increased cost ceilings, as set out by the Secretary of State, would not be breached.

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

The Bill has cross-party support, but there are many anxieties, not only the business case or the route, but the cost and how it is going up. The Government’s long-term spending plans suggest that HS2 will cost three times as much as London transport investment, twice as much as all local authority major projects and maintenance and seven times as much as the integrated transport block. It is therefore important that, as the project moves forward, Parliament has proper scrutiny and control of the costs, which means regular reporting.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I thank my hon. Friend. She is quite right that it is clear from the Government’s long-term spending plans that investment in HS2 will make up a significant proportion of that spending. The total by 2020-21 will be £16 billion, which is a significant sum, second only to the Government’s expected investment in our railway infrastructure through the allocation of funding to Network Rail. Of course the public expect to know that that money is being well spent. Let us hope that the chief executive’s assessment of 95% certainty that those cost ceilings would not be breached is correct. That increased certainty makes scrutiny all the more important if something does go wrong.

I shall comment briefly on the other amendments in this group. Unfortunately, I cannot support amendment 12, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. Although I completely understand his desire to see costs controlled and to keep parliamentary scrutiny strict, the £50 million limit is not the right way to achieve those aims, because it does not relate to the agreed budgets for HS2 Ltd that the Government have set out. Looking at the budget for 2015-16, it is expected that the Government will spend £832 million, and I am not sure that having to seek parliamentary approval for that in tranches of £50 million would be appropriate. He is, however, absolutely right to state the need for proper ministerial accountability for those sums of money. The same is true of amendment 13, especially when we reach 2016-17, which is when the budget goes up to just over £1.7 billion.

Of course, at this point we do not know when the hybrid Bill will be passed and that leads me to amendment 14, which would make the paving Bill invalid six months after Royal Assent. As we heard in evidence last week, the hybrid Bill is scheduled to be completed by May 2015, and my impression was that that is at best an ambitious target, particularly compared with previous hybrid Bills. We heard from the chief executive of High Speed 1 and from the chairman of Crossrail about the time it took to pass the relevant hybrid Bills, which was significantly longer than the time set out for the HS2 hybrid Bill, even though this project is even larger and more complex. Amendment 14 would not only leave the project somewhat in limbo, but have serious consequences for compensation payments, which is the point the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South made. Whatever hon. Members’ views on the merits of the project, I cannot imagine that we would want to take steps that would frustrate compensation payments if the scheme went ahead.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on the amendments, particularly amendment 21, on which we intend to divide the Committee. Does he really believe that a single report is adequate, regardless of changed circumstances? We have seen changes made in the past year, with additional tunnelling announced to the west of London and the extension of the tunnel under East Midlands airport, which sounds helpful. Jobs would be created and a rail freight terminus would be developed, which I am sure would we welcomed, although I note it is not sufficient to attract the support of the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). Nevertheless, as circumstances change, one would hope that Ministers would feel the need to update the House on the implications for the budget, rather than wait for a single report at the end of the financial reporting period.

Amendments have been tabled for more regular reporting, which we will deal with later. On the amendment before us, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that he or the Secretary of State will inform Parliament of any increases to the project’s budget, not just annually, but as soon as is reasonably practical? I look forward to listening to his response.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke, as we debate this very important preparation Bill for High Speed 2. I rise to speak in support of amendment 21. I support the north-south line and its development with proper regional connections. As we heard during the evidence sessions, that is crucial in taking the project forward. The Bill is controversial, so it is crucial that we have proper reporting structures in place. They will assist Government as well as those of us who are here to keep the Government under scrutiny, and they will give people confidence in big infrastructure projects going forward under many different Governments over a long period. It is important that we get the structure right. That will protect all of us in all our positions as HS2 proceeds over the years and decades to make a significant contribution to our national life.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras described the changes in the original budget as “grotesquely exceeded”. That might be a little flowery, but it does echo the language we have heard from people who really do care about this. Passions are running strongly.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I would not think there was anything flowery about how I described a £1 billion revision of the costs of the original proposals for Euston and for using the North London line for the HS2-HS1 link. I should be commended for understatement.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

True. I accept that my right hon. Friend’s language was accurate and precise.

I want to pick out some of the evidence witnesses presented to us. Although I do not agree with the direction of their argument, it is important that we as a Committee take on board their concerns and try to move this forward in a way that gives them confidence. In his evidence to us, Mr Joe Rukin of Stop HS2 said:

“The worst issue with HS2 Ltd is that they seem to have no concept whatsoever of budgetary control, because the consultants that have been employed by HS2 Ltd have just been effectively given a blank cheque.”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 9 July 2013; c. 51, Q79.]

We do not want to give anyone a blank cheque, and I am sure that is not what the Minister or the Government want, so it is important that we have controls in place to demonstrate that a blank cheque is not being given. It is important that the Minister makes his case for a mechanism that does that and that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South makes her argument for a better mechanism that will give confidence to people out there so that the Committee can consider both arguments.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

We all have to recognise that there is an intrinsic problem both for the Department and for HS2 Ltd in controlling the cost of consultants. If they go to consultants of world renown who then let them down, which is clearly the case with HS2, it is difficult to see what else they should have done. If they go for advice to people who purport to be the best but then give duff advice, it is a bit difficult to criticise the officials who appointed those people.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, but it is the responsibility of anyone employing other people to ensure that they operate within those costs. His frustration was echoed by Mr Rukin’s commentary on what he described as the “Euston debacle”. Mr Rukin went on to say that, in his view,

“Costs will continue to escalate, which is our major concern about the Bill, because we see it as a Bill for a blank cheque to go forward”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 9 July 2013; c. 52, Q79.]

It is important that the Committee demonstrates with the decisions it takes that the Bill is not a blank cheque and that there will be processes in place that will proactively control those costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South alluded to the evidence of HS2 Ltd, which said that it was 95% certain that it would manage within those costs. If the amendment is made, it will assist in ensuring that that 95% is 100%.

Mr Tett is the leader of Buckinghamshire county council, and he therefore rightly brings with him the voice of people who are particularly concerned about this development. His voice needs to be listened to, and in his evidence he again talked about spending:

“Do we know what their key milestones are?”

He was talking about budgetary milestones:

“Have they met those milestones? Have they always remained within budget?”

The history, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras has just reminded us, is of budgets not staying within the set template, so it is right and proper that people such as Councillor Tett should draw our attention to it:

“Do you have proper scrutiny, as Members of Parliament, of the budget and expenditure that HS2 is incurring? They are spending something like £360 million as of this year; how many times has Parliament scrutinised that expenditure?”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 9 July 2013; c. 52, Q79.]

Those questions echo around this room, and they are part of the evidence that we heard. It is important that we take proper steps to ensure that we take very seriously people’s concerns about the project. The project’s opponents set out major concerns when they came to see us, and their words—not my words—when describing their concerns were about budgetary control.

We can take steps today to assist in ensuring the strongest possible budgetary control. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South that simply reporting on an annual basis, although a good discipline, does not have the proactive mechanism for keeping a real eye on the budget that the amendment would provide.

I strongly recommend that the Minister, a listening and thoughtful man, takes on board the amendment so that together we can improve the quality of the Bill. That will be to the benefit of not only the House, but, most importantly, the whole country.

Khalid Mahmood (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I rise to look at comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I think the principle behind what he said was that it is highly important for us and for Parliament to gain hold of the financial controls of this project. Our problem with a project of this size is that since the 1980s, and perhaps earlier than that, we have got rid of all our real engineering disciplines.

We are now at the mercy of the consultants and the huge contractors who, essentially, put us over a barrel with these contracts. Until we come to terms with that, such infrastructure projects will always be subject to these people. They are not necessarily taking advantage, but they are certainly making capital out of these types of projects.

Although in principle the limit set by my right hon. Friend was perhaps a bit too low, I certainly think that Parliament should be looking at releasing tranches of funding so that this project does not run away and cost us an arm and a leg in the end. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the project, but at the end of it I do not want egg on my face when the costs come through.

The costs need to be properly controlled throughout the whole period of the project. So far there has been no demonstration whatever of controls, but there have been consultancy fees that keep going up and up. We need to have some sort of mechanism that ties the project down and brings it back to us.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

We have had an extremely interesting debate on what is clearly a crucial subject. The Committee should be aware, particularly with regard to amendments 12, 13 and 14, that the Bill is setting out provisions that will allow us to undertake preparatory work for all future phases of a high-speed rail network, not simply High Speed 2 phase 1 and phase 2, which have already been outlined by the Government. Given that one might extend the high-speed network to Scotland, for example, or to other parts of England, over many years, the requirement to come back to Parliament after every £50 million has been spent would be in some ways shambolic, and totally unnecessary.

It would also be short-sighted to put a financial limit on expenditure powers that aim to support a project that is going to span several decades, as any such limit would require the assumption about future spending requirements. I just do not believe that that is workable, as a number of Labour Committee members have said.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Bill is not meant to cover a period of decades. As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is to enable the Government to make preparations ahead of the full hybrid Bill. We understand the timetable to which he is working, so clearly, whatever the financial reporting provisions in the Bill, they would not stretch over the whole length of the project.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

No; the purpose of the Bill is that it could stretch over many decades for the simple reason that it is a paving Bill for the development of a high-speed rail network in this country. The first instance in which the Bill—or Act, if Parliament approves it—will apply is to High Speed 2 phase 1 and phase 2.

However, let us say hypothetically that in 2030 the Government of the day decided to build a high-speed rail link to Glasgow and Edinburgh and/or to Cardiff and Exeter. The Bill would still be on the statute book and applicable to approving the finances for the preparatory work, if such a project were to happen. That is why I say the Bill would apply over many decades. It is not realistic to require the Government of the day constantly to come back to Parliament regarding expenditure of £50 million. Adopting that principle would be harmful to any major infrastructure project under the Bill or to any other major infrastructure project.

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

Minister, I am not necessarily arguing in support of this, but how does that differ from the Government’s policy of requiring local authorities to publish details of any of their expenditure over £50 or £500? Surely that falls into the same kind of category.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

No, it does not. The hon. Lady asks how this differs from the procedure under which a local authority that spends more than a certain amount must publish the details. Under the amendments, the Department and HS2 would have to come back to Parliament for express approval for another tranche of £50 million. That is just not a viable way to run any major infrastructure project.

I hope that my hon. Friends, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and Opposition Members, including even the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, will, on reflection, accept that the amendment is not a sensible way forward for any major infrastructure project, not least High Speed 2, and, therefore, that they will consider not pressing it to a vote.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

The Minister raises a point that has, admittedly, just occurred to me. At the moment, the Bill authorises spending on phase 1, phase 2 and phase “fantasy”. Will the reporting distinguish between the money spent on phase 1 and the money spent on the rest?

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Yes is the straightforward answer.

Amendment 14 is a classic sunset clause. I notice which right hon. Members have attached their names to it, so how do I put this tactfully? The amendment is not designed to speed the Bill on its way with good intent. I am being careful, Mrs Brooke, because the amendment has been selected, so it is, of course, in order. My private views on its intentions are probably less charitable than yours were in selecting it.

The amendment would mean that, six months after the Bill was enacted, it would cease to have effect. We would then have to return to Parliament for another paving Bill. Any reasonable person, including every right hon. and hon. Member on the Committee will understand what a nonsense that is. I therefore urge Members not to support the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.

I fully understand the points the hon. Members for Nottingham South, for Scunthorpe and for Birmingham, Perry Barr made in support of amendment 21, but I am not as enthusiastic about it as they were. I am certainly enthusiastic about transparency and accountability, and about making sure that both Parliament and those well beyond this building are informed regularly about expenditure on the project. However, I do not think that the measures in the amendment are the right way forward.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South made the reasonable point that although having the annual report—we will no doubt discuss that in Committee—was perfectly satisfactory, she did not think that it was good enough by itself, and so believes that there should be more mechanisms, as set out in her amendment 21. However, we have had initial discussions with the National Audit Office, which was supportive of our plans for an annual financial report as that would marry with the NAO's annual duty to report to the Public Accounts Committee on the project’s value for money. If the National Audit Office is not proposing a more regular report, it would be out of step for us to do so.

There are already other mechanisms in place to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport keeps a close eye on the monitoring of the financial expenditure of the project. There are mechanisms that he has to comply with now if expenditure is to exceed the budget.

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

Will the Minister give way?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I was in the middle of a point, but I will give way, unless the hon. Gentleman would like to wait for me to finish the point and then intervene—it is up to him.

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

Finish the point.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Thank you. Amendment 21 would create a duty for the Secretary of State to issue a statement before the House should the yearly budget be exceeded or should it become clear that that budget is likely to be exceeded. However, that is unnecessary: the amendment would have no effect additional to that of the established process of the estimates and would create no further duties for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State than those that already exist.

The Secretary of State already has to make a statement should he believe that the Department’s budget will be exceeded, as part of the overall estimates process. If the expectation or the reality were that the spending on HS2 at any given moment would be exceeded, under the existing estimates procedures the Secretary of State would have to make a statement on that. It would be both highly unusual and unnecessary to create an additional duty specifically on high-speed rail, as amendment 21 seeks to.

On that basis, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments in this group, should any be pressed to a Division.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I feel that the Minister is taking a bean-counting approach to this matter. We have established—certainly it was clear from the evidence sessions—that there is real public concern about spending on the project. This is not simply a matter of meeting the accounting requirements of the National Audit Office; it is about ensuring public confidence in expenditure on the project.

That is why we have tabled amendment 21, which would simply require the Secretary of State to make a statement when agreed yearly budgets are going to be or are expected to be exceeded. It is not only an issue of good accounting practice; it is about providing reassurance to the public that when large sums of money are being spent, they are being spent properly.

I accept the Minister’s point about the estimates process; however, as we have noted, there has already been a large increase in the budget for the project during this Parliament. I do not recall a specific ministerial statement explaining why that was or seeking parliamentary approval for those increases.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I accept that it is crucial that proper financial disciplines are in place to ensure that the budget for the project is strictly and properly monitored. I also accept the need—the Government are determined to do this—to ensure that the public’s money is spent properly and for there to be transparency and accountability.

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Not yet—only because I am answering the question asked by his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Nottingham South, and I assume that he wants me to answer her question before I give way to him.

It is crucial that there is proper transparency and accountancy. That is why so much work has been done in High Speed 2 Ltd to tighten up on the mechanisms for the determining and the controlling of money and its expenditure, and on the project itself. That is an ongoing work in progress. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is acutely aware of that, which is why he is ensuring that the mechanisms are robust, accountable and transparent, so that we can ensure that we do not have a situation where the budget will balloon.

I return to my original point: the National Audit Office, with which we have had discussions, is satisfied with the way we are doing our annual final report. However, on top of that, as I mentioned during the course of my comments, there are the estimates processes, which apply to the Department for Transport and to High Speed 2 Ltd. The amendment, in some ways, would merely duplicate the existing requirements on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approvals. It would be unnecessary to duplicate that power.

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. My question for him has been asked, to an extent, by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South, and most eloquently. I hear what the Minister said about not wishing to duplicate the role of the NAO, but the issue is not only about the financial situation. Of course we want to see transparency and accountability, but we, in particular, as the Opposition, have a scrutiny role. I do not understand why the Minister does not accept the amendment.

Many on the Government Back Benches do not support the project, and I feel that they would like confidence and a degree of reassurance about the issue. If the proposal were put to all Members of the House, I think it would be agreed.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

The only thing I do not think hon. Members would find understandable is duplicating a process that is already in place.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Perhaps I can be of assistance in the debate on this important issue, having been a Secretary of State. Very rigorous audit processes are in place not only for Departments, but for bodies outwith Government that are responsible for delivering big infrastructure projects. It is not true to say that we continue in a pattern of constant, serious overruns; take the Olympics, for example, which were delivered on time and on budget. Scrutiny has become much tighter on infrastructure projects—at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we considered the Thames tunnel, for example—and it is about precisely the risk to any Government Department of any overrun in a project, whether it is one that the Department is building directly, or whether it has commissioned an external body to deliver on the project. The audit trail has to be very clear and estimates processes are there to ensure that the institutions of Government cannot just overrun. Parliament has the power to summon a Secretary of State to give account, on an estimates day, for any overrun, because it happens, and sometimes there are justifications for it.

Finally, the National Audit Office will qualify a Department’s accounts if it is not confident that the proper auditing process has been undertaken. A number of Departments have qualifications to their accounts, because the audit process turns up a lapse or a failure. It is made public and we can debate how that happened here; the process is in place. I hope that is of assistance.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has tremendous experience from her previous role in ensuring that public money is held to account and projects do not overrun.

Pat Glass Will the Minister give way?

Nic Dakin Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I will finish my point. My right hon. Friend made the point far more eloquently than I have done that the procedures are in place, and Departments are subject to parliamentary scrutiny if Parliament wishes to scrutinise them. Parliament can summon Secretaries of State and hold them to account for overspends in Departments or on projects.

I return to my original point, which is that amendment 21 is not necessary because it duplicates existing procedures that are tried, tested and effective at holding Government Departments and Secretaries of State to account on the spending of public money. I will take one more intervention before I conclude my remarks.

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

Does the Minister accept that had HS2 Ltd proved itself to be financially prudent and careful with taxpayers’ money, we would not have such great concerns? We are, after all, guardians of our constituents’ money. Therefore, given our concerns about the track record of HS2 Ltd, we want proper scrutiny in place for the future.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I accept that we need proper measures in place.

Nic Dakin Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

May I answer the hon. Lady first? I do not accept the premise of her question. There are robust procedures in place at the Department for Transport for its element of the spending on high-speed rail and HS2 Ltd. We will continue to have robust procedures and tight monetary controls to ensure that the best value for the taxpayer and the project is secured. Given the procedures in the Bill that we will discuss later, such as the annual report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to produce, and the procedures we have discussed in detail in the past 15 minutes on the estimates procedures in Parliament, I am satisfied that amendment 21 is not necessary because the mechanisms are already there. I will finally give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he is so persistent, before I draw my comments to a conclusion.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I thank the Minister for giving way. May I clarify one point? He seems to be saying that the estimates process, which seems to be quite arcane and comes at certain points in the year, does the same as what amendment 21 says, which is:

“The Secretary of State shall make a statement to the House of Commons should agreed yearly budgets be exceeded, or should they be expected to be exceeded.”

Is the Minister saying unequivocally that that will happen in relation to HS2?

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I am not cavalier enough to dismiss the estimates procedures and scrutiny in Parliament as arcane. I think it is a very effective way for Parliament to hold Governments and Departments to account. I am slightly surprised, given that the hon. Gentleman’s party have been in Opposition for three years and three months, that they have not come to see the benefits of the estimates procedures in holding the Government and their spending to account. I suspect what is disappointing them is, given their profligacy before we came to power, they are finding it difficult to find mistakes by this Government to highlight in the estimates procedures.

In conclusion, I believe we have, through the estimates procedures and my right hon. Friend’s requirement in the Bill to produce an annual report, and in the discussions we have had with the NAO—

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

No; I am not giving way again. We have suitably robust procedures, with which Parliament can monitor, keep an eye on and hold to account not only the Secretary of State but the project itself. I therefore urge hon. Members not to support amendment 21. I do not think it is necessary, because of the existing procedures and other proposals in the Bill to deal with an important issue.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I am happy to withdraw the amendment; it would have been the quickest sunset clause in history. I have heard of Instant Sunshine, but as for instant sunset—we hoped we would sneak it through, but we did not.

Ministers may not think so, but the whole country wonders about giving a blank cheque to a Department that has never been responsible for a major project that came out on time and to price.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has been reflecting on the National Audit Office’s report “High Speed 2: A review of early programme preparation”. I have been reminding myself of its contents this morning, including the statement:

“We estimate there is a £3.3 billion gap spread over four years”.

Does my right hon. Friend think that that is contributing to the public concern about escalating cost? Does not it create a need for the Government to understand that they must provide reassurance about budgets—and, if they are to be exceeded, to come to Parliament and explain why, so that people can understand what is happening with the project?

Inevitably, there may be cost overruns in a project of this size, as it develops. That was anticipated, and the National Audit Office recognised it, but that needs to be explained.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I doubt whether many of the public know about the gap of £3 point-whatever-it-is billion. We are being asked by the Minister to go along slavishly with the views of the National Audit Office—except when he does not agree with them. I have always understood that we cannot pick and choose from what the auditor says; we must go along with it. That is the usual arrangement.

The Department of Transport is not, in Wordsworth’s words, “trailing clouds of glory” in relation to estimates. Those are the people who fouled up the franchising of the west coast main line. When the Secretary of State, for whom I have great respect and whose integrity I would not challenge for a minute, said after that franchising débâcle that he believed the estimates for HS2 were sound, I suggested to him that he might show a little hesitancy. Then, lo and behold, the figures just within my constituency turned out to be £1 billion out. It is such figures that make people suspicious, and make them want better and closer monitoring. Parliament should be in favour of closer, more specific monitoring of what is happening; because what is happening is a mess.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

My right hon. Friend makes a strong case. Was not that point raised specifically by the NAO, with reference to the failure to take account of what might happen to VAT? It said:

“Public perception of how well the Department manages the High Speed 2 programme may be adversely affected if the estimate is increased to include VAT even though this represents an internal transfer within government”.

Is not that all about explaining things and making what is happening to planned and actual expenditure transparent? That might not be a problem, but the public perception is that it is. That is the issue that the Government need to tackle.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I agree with my hon. Friend.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Amendment 21 to be moved formally later.

Members might like to think about using time effectively, with shorter interventions.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Mrs Brooke, will you say whether you intend to have a stand part debate? If not, I will make my comments on amendments.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

That will be reviewed during the day, presumably with my co-Chair.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Thank you.

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, after ‘lines’, insert ‘adding capacity between and’.

The amendment would add reference to capacity to the Bill. The genesis of this project was under the previous Labour Government, when it was ably championed, and still is, of course, by my noble Friend, Lord Adonis. He has a formidable reputation in the rail industry. Indeed, the Minister sometimes likes to pray his support in aid, perhaps wrongly. He is held in high regard. I am sure that the Minister and I both aspire to be held in such high regard.

In 2009, the noble Lord recognised the pressing need to tackle a coming capacity crunch on our railways. Labour agrees, as do all three major parties, that a new north-south rail line is needed to deliver that extra capacity. That is why we supported this paving Bill on Second Reading and why, although we may seek to amend it in Committee, to improve it, we continue to support its parliamentary progress. We recognise that cross-party support is vital to the successful delivery of such infrastructure projects.

When Dr Adam Marshall of the chambers of commerce gave evidence to the Committee last week, he used an interesting phrase that I almost felt I had heard before. When I asked him why he thought that high-speed rail was needed, he said, “Capacity, capacity, capacity.” He was right. Over the past year, 1.5 billion journeys were made on our rail network. That is 4,000 more services each day than in the mid-1990s. In the past 30 years, rail journeys are up 30%.

In the past, it was felt that rail growth was related to the growth in GDP, but that 30% rise is more than double the growth in GDP over the same period and rail use, per head of population, has nearly doubled: 48%, according to the Office for National Statistics. We may not quite agree about the reasons for that growth—that issue was hotly contested in the recent debate on the Transport Committee’s “Rail 2020” report in the main Chamber—but the tremendous growth in demand for rail travel is surely not in dispute. Passenger numbers have continued to grow, despite tough economic times, at an average of 4% a year.

I should add a little caveat at this point, because Joe Rukin, giving evidence last week on behalf of Stop HS2, said that the figures from the Office of Rail Regulation showed that in the first quarter of this year there was 2.6% decrease in passenger numbers on long-distance journeys and that overall the number of rail passenger journeys on Great Britain’s railways was down 1.3%, year on year. However, that is the first time that demand for rail travel has fallen since 2009, when the economy was in recession.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My hon. Friend is right to spell out the importance of capacity and why capacity should be mentioned in the Bill. Does she agree that it is not only about passenger capacity, but that we also need, significantly, to consider the impact on freight capacity, which needs to be captured?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

My hon. Friend makes a vital point, which I shall come to later.

I was speaking about passenger growth and, since 2009, with the exception of the recent quarter, the railways have enjoyed 12 consecutive quarters of growth. While the latest quarter’s figures give us cause to pause and think, we cannot conclude that one quarter’s figures show a change in a well-established trend.

I know that there is anxiety at the Department for Transport about what caused the decrease in the first quarter of the year, and some Opposition members might consider that the eye-watering fare increases in January was the reason. People will recall that, since Ministers restored the ability of train operating companies to flex the fares, in some cases, while the cap was set at 1% above inflation, fares increased by as much as 9% above inflation. There is a risk that those large increases could start to choke off demand for rail services, but it really is far too early to tell. The long-term trend would suggest otherwise.

Perhaps not surprisingly, growth in demand for rail travel has been particularly strong in our cities. The Association of Train Operating Companies found that 14 cities, including six of the most populated cities in Britain, recorded double-digit growth in rail journeys during the past five years—despite a double-dip recession. The demand for extra capacity affects all the major inter-city lines, including east coast and midland main line. I was looking at the growth in passenger numbers predicted for midland main line, the line used by me and the Secretary of State, and noted that by, 2020, it is expected that east midlands to London traffic will increase by 27%, that Nottingham to Birmingham traffic is anticipated to increase by 42% and that the east midlands traffic to east England will increase by 36%. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe rightly said, freight growth is important and, on the midland main line, that is expected to increase even higher, reaching 50% by 2015. Of course, we want that growth met without significant compromises on performance.

The extra capacity affects all the major inter-city lines, including midland main line as well as east coast for which, unfortunately, I do not have any figures handy. The greatest need that was focused on when we took evidence in Committee last week was in respect of midland main line such that, by the mid-2020s, the line is expected to be full. Figures were provided for what the percentage capacity might be on some trains operating on west coast main line. It is interesting to note that passengers consider trains to be full when they are operating at about 70% to 80% capacity. When a higher level of occupancy than that is reached, obviously some way off 100%, people are deterred from using the train because it seems that, when they get on the train, it is full—perhaps because they do not have the delight of an empty seat next to them.

According to the National Audit Office, capacity levels on long distance inter-city services are expected to exceed 100% by 2033. It is important that we do not deter passengers from using the railways. The main competitor is the motor car, and we need more people to use the railways rather than their cars for long-distance journeys because of safety considerations and, of course, the reduction of carbon emissions as well as the cost implications. In 2011, during the morning peak, on average 4,000 people were standing on their arrival into London Euston and 5,000 people were standing on their way into Birmingham, which means 115 passengers for every 100 seats.

I am referring primarily to capacity, and I am sure that many members of the Committee will have heard some of the opponents of HS2 arguing that we do not need faster journeys because passengers can work on the train. Obviously, their ability to work on the train is severely limited if they do not have a seat, and I imagine that those who are standing on a train wish to reach their destination as swiftly as possible. Those who gave evidence emphasised the need to take action to tackle the capacity crunch. I particularly want to mention Birmingham, where capacity is a significant problem. I am sure that hon. Members will remember Geoff Inskip from Centro saying:

“Capacity issues are already with us,”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 9 July 2013; c. 18, Q32.]

He described the importance of the commuter railway to the west midlands, where it is already impossible to meet current demand, and the need not only for longer trains with more seats, but for sufficient space on the network. Overcrowding on the network leads to problems with reliability; if too many trains are in operation, a problem in one area can have multiple knock-on impacts.

Khalid Mahmood (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Capacity is a particular problem for Birmingham and the west midlands. It is not simply that passengers have to stand on trains into and onwards from Birmingham, the regional capital; the key question concerns businesses coming to Birmingham. My constituency has recently seen investment from the United Arab Emirates. Because the investors have businesses in London, they will come to London first and move on to Birmingham, but they are having huge difficulty making arrangements to get across to Birmingham. A proper rail system that served those needs would be better not only for London but for the regions outside it, particularly the west midlands, because greater capacity would attract far more businesses to such areas.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

My hon. Friend is quite right that tackling capacity impacts on the Bill’s other objectives, including attracting inward investment and rebalancing the economy between London and the south-east, and the midlands and the north. As we heard from Centro, demand for more services to London has resulted in downgrading some local services in the west midlands. That is in spite of the west coast main line modernisation, which cost almost £10 billion and caused massive disruption, as several hon. Members and witnesses mentioned.

Rail travel in the west midlands has increased so dramatically that Network Rail’s growth forecast for 2020-21 has been achieved eight years early. Recent figures issued by the Association of Train Operating Companies show that, during the past five years, rail commuting into and out of Birmingham has increased by some 105%, which is the point that my hon. Friend was making. There is real unmet demand, which is why there is such strong support for action to create extra capacity on our railways. Our cities—we heard not only from Birmingham, but from Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Nottingham—cannot continue to thrive without it. A new north-south rail line will primarily serve long-distance passengers who will be able to transfer on to the high-speed line, but that will free up capacity for commuters on the existing or classic line.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe said, we are talking about not only passengers but freight. We need to do a much better job of getting freight off our roads, but the lack of capacity on the rail network constrains our ability to do so. Lord Berkeley said last week:

“Freight volumes will probably grow about 40% in the next 10 years”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 11 July 2013; c. 133, Q243.]

As he told us, the most important route for freight is the west coast main line. It is vital that we shift freight off our roads and on to rail to tackle congestion. Anyone who has sat in heavy traffic on our motorways knows the congestion that can be caused by large numbers of freight vehicles. We must also improve safety on our roads, particularly on major trunk roads. I do not know to what extent rail freight would assist with this, but we have seen during the past week the danger that heavy goods vehicles pose to other road users, especially cyclists. While we do not have cyclists on our motorways, they do use some of our other major routes.

This rail line is also about reducing carbon emissions by taking some freight away from HGVs and on to rail. The Rail Freight Group estimated that providing extra capacity on our railways could save 500,000 tonnes of CO2a year by removing 200 trucks an hour from our motorway network, which is extremely significant. To provide extra capacity is absolutely key and that is one of the reasons why we support the Government in incurring expenditure for a high-speed rail link transport network.

Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South)

I agree with much of what the hon. Lady says. The main purpose of phase 1 and phase 2 is to add capacity to the network, but I am puzzled by her amendment. Given earlier comments about the Bill allowing potential extensions to the high-speed network in the future, might the amendment be restrictive if a particular future project is not so much about capacity but increasing speed? That might fall foul of the Bill if it is amended in the way she proposes. Will she reflect on that in her comments?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that capacity is not the only issue in the Bill; there are others, such as connectivity and journey time savings that we have debated and might discuss further. Nevertheless, the Minister was clear in his comments that capacity is the critical issue. In fact, in evidence he said that, when making the case for the project:

“We should have concentrated more on the critical issue of capacity”.––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 11 July 2013; c. 155, Q294.]

That is what we seek to acknowledge. The amendment addresses the concerns of not just hon. Members, but the wider public.

When I speak to my constituents and people around the country, they often ask, “Why are we investing in a high-speed rail line simply to provide quicker journey times down to London for a few business travellers?” I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the main argument for the high-speed rail line, but the public perception is that it is simply about speed. There is a real need to rebalance and refocus the argument on the need for the line.

Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South)

I entirely accept the hon. Lady’s argument; I just worry that, if the Bill is amended in the way that she seeks and, for example, in the future a decision is made to extend the high-speed line to Glasgow, with the primary intention of improving speed and journey times, using the lines in Cumbria and the Scottish borders where there is not a capacity constraint, as that project would not specifically increase capacity, it might not be viable under the terms of Bill.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not believe that that would be the case. Adding the wording about capacity to the Bill does not commit it to allowing the development of high-speed railways only where there is a capacity issue. Inevitably, if we further develop the high-speed rail network, that will add capacity between destinations. The amendment does not seek to say that that should be the only reason for continuing to develop high-speed rail; it simply acknowledges that that is one of its effects.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a high-speed rail network brings benefits other than capacity. I wish to speak further about the importance of journey time savings and, more broadly, connectivity between some of our core cities.

As we dwell on capacity, I am mindful of your comments, Mrs Brooke. We should consider whether the high-speed rail network is the right way to provide that capacity. That was a contentious point in our evidence sessions last week. Paul Plummer of Network Rail told us that their studies had concluded that a new line was the only viable way to provide that extra capacity. When looking at alternative suggestions for ways to boost the capacity, he said:

“They would be very considerable in scale, very expensive and very disruptive to existing services”.

Perhaps even more importantly, they

“do not get us anywhere near where we think we need to be.”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 9 July 2013; c. 68, Q115.]

Although evidence from witnesses suggested that the overriding imperative for the new line is capacity—the Minister agreed—particularly to relieve the London to Birmingham stretch of the west coast main line, we should also acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South about there being enormous potential for improving connectivity and journey times between Britain’s towns and cities. Yesterday, I travelled from Nottingham to London, which takes at least an hour and 44 minutes. It would be valuable to be able to get here in just an hour and eight minutes. The journey time savings are even more significant on some of the other routes. Hon. Members will be aware that London to Manchester currently takes two hours and eight minutes, but on High Speed 2 the travel time would be nearly halved to one hour and eight minutes. It would also take one hour and nine minutes to travel from Sheffield to London, compared with two hours and five minutes now.

Thinking about the businesses in my constituency, I can see that, while capacity is the driving benefit, there is a real benefit in reducing the travel time not just to London but between our core cities. High Speed 2 would also help us rebalance the economy because of that extra connectivity and allow people to make a different modal choice, as they can decide to leave their car at home and use the railways instead. For example, it does not take long to drive from Nottingham to Birmingham in the car—although I can get stuck in traffic—but it takes an hour and 16 minutes on the train, which seems utterly ludicrous. On a high-speed line, that could be reduced to just 36 minutes, which would be a real incentive for us to make that modal shift. Similarly, it currently takes two hours and three minutes from Nottingham to Leeds and that would be cut to just 46 minutes.

There is a close link between providing extra capacity and enabling new services on the existing network. We should not forget that it is about not just providing capacity on the high-speed line, but the things that it frees us to do on the existing lines. That point came out in evidence last week when we discussed the potential for improving commuter services. We have tabled another amendment that addresses new services, so I will not pre-empt that discussion now. However, we want to see both amendments passed, better to reflect the aims and benefits of this project in the Bill.

The Minister said in his evidence last week that, when making the case for the project, there should have been more focus on the critical issue of capacity. I suspect that Members of all parties would agree with that statement. The Bill is a prime opportunity to reflect that emphasis, and that was the point I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South. At the moment, the Bill, as it stands, does not mention the word capacity once, and the amendment seeks to address that omission. When we return to the main Chamber on Third Reading, we can make that case to a wider audience. For that reason, we intend to push the amendment to a vote.

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

The focus of the case for High Speed 2 on speed and cost is unfortunate. In areas such as mine, making the argument for HS2 is much harder when we simply look at that focus, because my constituency has no railway line, HS2 will not come anywhere near and people’s main transport concern is whether they can get a bus—usually, they cannot. The Government need to frame the case for HS2 in a much wider argument if they are to involve people throughout the country. HS2 is often seen as a vanity project for the south-east, or as far north as Manchester and Leeds, but it is not going much further, to where people will still be paying the bill. Those people need to be included in the discussion and the Government need to frame their arguments a little wider.

We understand the problems of meeting housing growth in places such as Milton Keynes and Northampton, and there is a great deal of sympathy for commuters who are paying more, with higher costs, on the railways and still failing to get a seat. Those arguments resonate, as do those on economic growth and rebalancing the economy from south to north, but the project will simply bring our country to the position that Japan was in 25 years ago.

The arguments about freight are important, and there is an understanding that freight volumes have grown and will continue to grow, by more than 40% over the next 10 years. If we are serious about carbon emissions, we need to improve capacity for transporting freight as well as passengers. People in my constituency also understand the arguments about HS2 freeing capacity on the east coast line, which would be a welcome development.

What really resonates in places such as the north-east is the tipping point argument. We understand that at the moment the tipping point between rail and air travel between London and the north-east is Newcastle; HS2 will move that tipping point to Edinburgh, which would clearly have a beneficial impact on the environment and on carbon emissions. The Government need to frame the case for HS2 within a much wider argument.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Has my hon. Friend reflected on the comments of Mike Hewitson from Passenger Focus? When he gave evidence last week, he was talking about the importance of the Government spelling out more clearly the benefits for capacity. He said:

“If we had that debate a bit more in public, people might see how some of the benefits of this railway could be spread out a bit. It has got locked into an issue of cost and speed, when in reality it is about the capacity. If it were framed about capacity there would be a different debate.”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 11 July 2013; c. 112, Q192.]

Does she agree that that is why we are seeking to put the issue of capacity into the Bill?

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

I do agree, and that is exactly the argument that I am making. HS2 will not directly affect an awful lot of people throughout the country, or not affect them for decades, and yet they will still be paying the bills for it. They need to be supportive and to be part of the debate, and they understand the argument about capacity well.

The Government need to sell the project to the wider community by framing the argument in terms that will reach well beyond the planning route. Explicit references to capacity are an important part of the argument, which will be understood by people who are paying the bills, but who are well beyond that route and will not feel the impact of HS2 directly for decades, if at all.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that last week’s evidence sessions highlighted the importance of the benefits that accrue to towns and cities not directly on the new lines? The new north-south rail line will be fully integrated into the existing network—I guess that we will come on to this point later in our discussions of the Bill—and the classic-compatible trains will have the ability to travel on the high-speed track and then on the existing network, so they will be able to connect to far more places than only those with an HS2 station. Does that not help to make the case for the high-speed rail network?

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

It does. The fact that it will cut journey times in the relatively short term resonates with people in the north-east, but the biggest argument in favour is the fact that it will release capacity on the existing east coast line. At the moment it is very difficult to get a seat even from York to London, which is a long time—two hours—to stand.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

This has been an extremely interesting debate. Opposition Members have the made valid point, which the Government wholeheartedly share, that probably one of the most crucial benefits of High Speed 2 is how it will address the problem of capacity. As we heard during the evidence sessions and elsewhere before that, it is expected that the west coast main line will be full to capacity by the mid-2020s. We see from our own examples around the country, whether commuter lines into London and other big cities, or the examples that the hon. Members for Nottingham South and for North West Durham gave, that there are currently problems with capacity. The Government are determined to deal with that.

We have always made it absolutely clear that HS2 is about providing capacity as well as other benefits. We must provide capacity for our over-burdened commuter lines to allow additional freight on to our railways—I think every hon. Member in the Committee accepts that—and to provide for future increases in rail transport capacity. The Secretary of State made that clear on Second Reading, and we have repeatedly stated that the proposals for HS2 will provide additional capacity to the locations it serves and have a ripple effect on other services. Indeed, hon. Members will be aware that it is the first new railway to be built north of London for more than a century.

In so far as I have a problem with the amendment, it is that it is not linked to the intentions and nature of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the Government to spend money on the preparatory work for high-speed rail projects. Its purpose is not to solve any of the problems that high-speed rail will address when it is built. For that reason, it is superfluous to insert such a provision in the Bill because we are dealing with allowing the Government to spend money on the preparatory work for the railway, and HS2 is a critical part of addressing the problem of capacity. Because the amendment is superfluous and irrelevant to the Bill’s purpose, which is about money, and not the related issues, I urge hon. Members, on reflection, not to support it. We are determined to deal with capacity and this is not the right vehicle in which to do that.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I note the Minister’s comments, but in his evidence to the Committee last week he said:

“I think that, in the early days, too much emphasis was placed simply on this being a project that would make it quicker to go from A to B…We should have concentrated more on the critical issue of capacity”.––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 11 July 2013; c. 154, Q294.]

I appreciate his acknowledgement that the Government failed to make that argument sufficiently well.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Both Governments.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

The Minister seeks to suggest that I am part of that failure.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I think the shadow Minister was about to refer to the failure of the previous Government, which was of course her Government, before she realised the hole she was dropping into. The fact is that HS2 was launched by her Government. I am prepared to accept that in the past we have concentrated too much on stressing the importance of speed, or allowed the press to get carried away with that, when capacity is the crucial issue. However, that tendency started from the moment the whole concept of HS2 was embraced under her party’s Government.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

The Minister suggested that I was in some way responsible for not having made the argument about capacity, but I am not convinced that I had that responsibility.

I appreciate that the Minister believes that it is not necessary to make a reference to capacity in this preparation Bill, but I do not agree. No matter who was responsible for creating the impression about the purpose of the Bill and its importance, the fact is that we have all accepted that there is a misapprehension on the part of the public that HS2 is purely about saving journey time, when the critical issue at this point, particularly in relation to phase 1 but also to phase 2, is about adding capacity. However, as I said in my response to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South, the amendment does not seek to make that the only reason for developing the high-speed rail network.

I take on board the Minister’s comment that this enabling Bill will allow for future preparations for the development of high-speed rail, not just for phases 1 and 2. The amendment would simply make it clear in the Bill that developing a high-speed railway has the effect of adding capacity in addition to providing connectivity. It would be useful, when we are seeking to change the views of the public, increase public support and improve understanding of the Bill, to make that clear so that the Bill is better understood by the wider public.

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. The Bill is not just about money, but about what the project is about. As she said, capacity is crucial. Indeed, according to the words uttered by the Minister just a few moments ago, capacity is crucial. Does she not find it bizarre that he is not prepared to accept her argument and the amendment?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I am somewhat surprised that, having recognised the importance of making the case for capacity and acknowledging that that case has not been sufficiently made, the Minister is not more willing to consider the amendment. It is designed to be helpful and reflects our joint support for the project and our joint understanding of the objectives that the project is designed to achieve.

To reflect on the contributions in last week’s evidence sessions, we heard from Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester city council. Manchester is a key city for regenerating our economy, and the council is an important driver not just of Manchester, but of the whole north-west region. The importance of the challenge of capacity facing that city is why the amendment matters so much. Sir Richard said that

“at the moment we have inadequate space for commuter services, which at the very worst are running at 190% capacity.”

That demonstrates the importance of making a step change in the ability of our railways to cope with demand. He also said:

“We have inadequate pathways for inter-city services, and intermediate services. There is a demand for freight access to double…There is not the capacity for that…the only route to deal with those capacity issues is through a completely new network, wholly integrated with the existing classic network.”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 9 July 2013; c. 18, Q32.]

I do not understand. There is no difference between us on the importance of capacity and on the fact that any further development of high-speed rail adds capacity between connected cities. That is not to say that connecting cities is not important. The Bill acknowledges that we are providing connections between places and names a number of places that are being connected. It also allows the “at least” in order that the range of places that can be connected by the network can be expanded in future.

We quite simply have to win this argument with the public. The Government are proposing, with our support, to spend £50 billion, or thereabouts, on the development of this high-speed network and, from my postbag, the e-mails that I receive and so on, I know that people are challenging whether it is the right thing to do and whether that money might be better spent. We heard in evidence last week the arguments about how that £50 billion could be spent and how well or otherwise the project meets the capacity challenges that our railways face. That is why we tabled amendment 22. We want that issue to be acknowledged and for the wider argument to be addressed.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out ‘the East Midlands’ and insert ‘the Nottingham/Derby corridor’.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after ‘Leeds’ leave out ‘and’.

Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, after ‘Manchester’, insert

‘and one or more towns or cities in Scotland’.

Amendment 24, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(c) provides new services to destinations including, but not limited to, Glasgow and Edinburgh.’.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Amendment 23 seeks to address an apparent oddity in the Bill. Subsection (2)(a) lists five cities, but the east midlands is in a unique position as the whole region is named rather than a more precise description of where a station might be. Nottingham, Leicester and Derby are the three main centres of rail passenger demand in the east midlands. Last year, there were almost 6.5 million passengers from Nottingham, almost 5 million from Leicester, and 3.35 million from Derby.

Let us think about the east midlands region, which also covers Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire. There is no realistic prospect of the line cutting through or having a station out in Lincolnshire, despite the fact that the county is technically covered by the Bill. In reality, in order for the high-speed line to be effective in serving the east midlands, it must address the centres of demand, particularly the key centre of demand, which is of course Nottingham.

HS2 Ltd looked at a number of locations for a potential east midlands station—its March 2015 report to the Government, “Options for phase two of the high speed rail network,” set out all the possible locations. I am trying to remind myself of the number of stops that were considered; it was certainly in excess of 30, although some did not progress from the long-list to the short-list. Eventually, two options were considered for an east midlands hub: at Toton in Nottinghamshire, or rebuilding the existing Derby Midland station in the centre of Derby. A Leicestershire option was discounted because of the impact on the route and the difficulties in connecting from other cities.

HS2 Ltd has made it clear that Toton—roughly equidistant between Nottingham and Derby, for those who are not familiar with it—remains the preferred choice. It has good existing links to Derby and Nottingham, and is close to the M1 and the A52, which is the main link road between those cities. There is potential opportunity to link to other towns in the locality, in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire.

There are people arguing that the station should be located in Derby. I do not propose to get into that argument, but I would say that the revised wording in the amendment would cover both of the short-listed options—Toton and Derby. I would not like to fail to note the importance of connections from Leicester as well, particularly for people going north to Sheffield and Leeds or across to Birmingham. We must ensure that benefits are felt by all three major cities in the east midlands. However, in setting out what the network is going to look like, it would be more accurate and provide more clarity if the reference to the east midlands was made in the same way as to every other stop along the line.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Is there any demand or request for a high-speed link to East Midlands airport, rather than just going in a tunnel underneath it?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, which has been raised by a number of people locally. They asked whether that was an appropriate response that should be considered. I have had discussions with representatives of East Midlands airport, and they do not believe that there is any benefit to having a high-speed station located at the airport—they did not see that there was the market, or that it was necessary or desirable.

However, I can see that, because East Midlands airport is relatively poorly served by public transport, there might have been an interest in that idea.

It does not feature because it was discounted fairly early in the process, as was a stop at East Midlands Parkway, which is an existing station between Nottingham, Leicester and Derby, but not particularly close to any of them. East Midlands Parkway station gets between 200,000 and 300,000 passengers a year, but that nowhere near compares with the cities, where, as I said, we are talking about more than 6 million from Nottingham, almost 5 million from Leicester and getting on for more than 3.5 million from Derby.

The reasoning behind amendment 23 is that the current wording in the Bill is a little vague, especially as we now have a degree of certainty over where the station will be.

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that any kind of vagueness in legislation is seriously bad news? We do not want to leave the door open for city corporations or companies to seek judicial reviews about what Parliament meant when we put the Bill together.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I thank my hon. Friend. She is right that, without overly restricting what is available to Ministers and the Government, as much certainty as possible is preferable. We can be reasonably certain that the station will be in or between Nottingham and Derby, just as we can be reasonably certain of the other stops, which are listed in subsection (2)(a). We therefore feel that “the Nottingham-Derby corridor” is a more precise and useful wording than that in the Bill. Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to place on record his thoughts on that? It would helpful if he could explain why the east midlands description is unique in the Bill. It is not the only stop that is not in a city centre. The current suggestion for Sheffield is that the station will be at Meadowhall, which is on the outskirts of the city, and yet the stop is clearly noted as Sheffield, in the wider sense of the word. I look forward to his response.

Amendment 24, which deals with Scotland and wider connectivity, addresses two issues: first, connections to Scotland, which have always been part of the case for high-speed rail, but are conspicuously absent from the Bill; and secondly, the wider use of classic-compatible services, which subsection (2)(b) might allude to, but we feel should have a stronger emphasis in the Bill. The Minister may argue, as he did last week, that subsection (2)(a) speaks of connecting “at least” the areas listed and requires the project to connect

“with the existing railway transport network.”

Our complaint is that a literal reading of the Bill could lead to stations in the areas listed in subsection (2)(a), and connections to the classic network in those places, but no more than that. Our amendment would impose a duty on the project to run new services, including services to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

The benefits that would derive from better links to Scotland are a core part of the case for a new north-south rail line. In 2009, HS2 Ltd was established with the specific task of looking at options for better rail links between England and Scotland, and the potential benefits were assessed in the March 2010 Command Paper; that emphasis was maintained as policy developed under the current Government. The Command Paper on phase 2 makes it clear that the Government consider the project’s connections to Scotland to be part of what they call “a truly national network”. The benefits to Scotland’s economy from cutting journey times to London to less than four hours are estimated to be £3 billion. It seems odd to Opposition Members not to include such classic-compatible links in the Bill, especially as the overall scope of the legislation already extends to Scotland specifically under Clause 3.

I am afraid we were not convinced by the Minister’s argument last week that the issue is covered by the words “at least” in subsection (2)(a). He was concerned that we might not understand the point, but we understand it full well—we just do not believe the clause goes far enough. We want a guarantee that at least some classic-compatible services will run to Glasgow and Edinburgh, as has always been planned. The amendment would provide that guarantee.

The Government’s reluctance to include Scotland in the Bill raises a simple question: why not? Will the Minister give the Committee a firm commitment that classic-compatible services will run to Glasgow and Edinburgh? If he will, why not include a commitment in the Bill?

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Scotland is included in the Bill—it is in clause 3, as the hon. Lady said just a few minutes ago.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

It is included in clause 3, but the clause simply extends the Bill to Scotland. The Bill gives no guarantees about the development of the rail network; clause 3 simply covers the extent of the Bill.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

The hon. Lady really is making very heavy weather of this. As I assume she understands, HS2 is about two phases: phase 1 and phase 2. The Bill, initially, is about allowing moneys to be spent regularly on the preparatory work for phase 1 and phase 2. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in early October that he would set up discussions with Scotland and then studies as to the feasibility of a possible phase 3 to Edinburgh and Glasgow. That, as we heard from the evidence, is happening, but the Bill before us today deals with moneys for phase 1 and phase 2, although it can be used at a later stage for further development of high-speed rail.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I thank the Minister for his clarification, but it gives me less assurance than I had before. I was talking not about the extension of phase 3 or phase 4, but about the opportunity to develop classic-compatible services as part of the phase 1 and phase 2 network. The argument was made that, in the arrangements for phase 2, there would be connections to Scotland as part of what was called “a truly national network”.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

All right. If it helps the hon. Lady, let me say that the High Speed 2 trains, when the line is built to Leeds and Manchester, will continue north on the conventional rails to Newcastle, on the east coast; on the west coast, they will go up to Glasgow and then across to Edinburgh. That will be at conventional speeds.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I thank the Minister for that, but if he is agreeing that those services will be provided, why is he unwilling to accept an amendment that says that the development of the new high-speed network will provide

“new services to destinations including, but not limited to, Glasgow and Edinburgh”?

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Because it is the high-speed services.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

The amendment seems to acknowledge the very thing the Minister has just conceded will be created by the Bill.

Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South)

When we had the evidence session last week, the representative from Transport Scotland was asked several times whether he and the Scottish Government were content with the Bill as drafted, and the very clear answer was that they were perfectly content and saw it as a perfectly reasonable vehicle for extending high-speed rail to Scotland in due course, if that is the wish.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I agree that the representative said he was content. The point is that Opposition Members are not content, and we would like the amendment to be accepted.

I should address the point that was raised by the Minister, because he sought to suggest that our amendment would require Scotland—or, at least, Glasgow and Edinburgh—to be connected directly by high-speed rail lines. That is not what the amendment seeks to do. Clause 1 already makes reference to a network “at least” connecting a number of our great cities; it talks about connecting with the existing railway transport network. We simply seek to make clear, and provide a guarantee, that as part of that development of the network and the connections with the existing network, new services will be provided to destinations that include Glasgow and Edinburgh.

In the evidence sessions last week we heard from witnesses, including the Minister for Transport in Scotland, that the Scottish Government have made no representations to include Scotland in the main text of the Bill. It seems to be a curious Tory-Scottish National party agreement to exclude Scotland from the Bill. We are very clear on the Labour Benches that Scotland should be included in the legislation as a guarantee of those new services.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am not sure how familiar the hon. Lady is with Scottish politics, but the SNP makes every effort it can to differentiate itself from the UK Government; indeed, it is always criticising this Government. However, the SNP could not find one word of criticism on this issue. Will the hon. Lady not accept that that means it is impossible to criticise the Government on this subject, given that the SNP experts cannot find an issue with it?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

The hon. Gentleman clearly is far more expert in the ways of the SNP than I am. However, I find it hard to understand why the Minister will not include in the legislation something that he has just said will be provided as part of the new high-speed network and connecting services, when clearly there are a number of people in Scotland who believe that that should be done.

Finally, I would like to stress the two words “at least” in our amendment, because classic-compatible services are absolutely vital to the project’s overall success. That applies not just to Scotland but to many other towns and cities on the route. There is no direct reference to them in the Bill, so our amendment would address that problem.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Brooke. I want to speak against amendment 24. The Minister has explained that once phases 1 and 2 are constructed, the high-speed trains will run on the high-speed lines as far as Birmingham initially, in phase 1, on to Manchester and Leeds in phase 2 and will continue on the existing lines as far as Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. That means that the amendment is completely unnecessary.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the evidence given last Thursday by Peter Lloyd, the rail policy manager at Transport Scotland.

First, he says:

“Regarding high-speed rail more broadly, we are entirely supportive of the Department for Transport and the UK Government’s position.”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 11 July 2013; c. 87, Q140.]

He continues:

“Our position is that we are content that the Bill indicates that the network will extend at least to the specified cities and regions…We support the HS2 plans in the Command Paper that the Secretary of State for Transport introduced in January.”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 11 July 2013; c. 87, Q142.]

Further on he says:

“The view of the Scottish Government is that we are content with the Bill as it stands.”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 11 July 2013; c. 100, Q174.]

I could see that the hon. Member for Livingston was looking extremely puzzled at that point; I think that—given that it is not normal Scottish Government behaviour to say that they are entirely content with what the UK Government are doing—he could not believe what he was hearing. He asked, yet again:

“So you are saying that the Scottish Government are perfectly content that mention of Edinburgh and Glasgow is not made in the Bill?”

Mr Lloyd replied:

“As it stands, yes. We are content with the provisions in the Bill that will allow further development of the network.”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 11 July 2013; c. 100, Q175.]

The Scottish Government are working with the UK Government and are entirely content with what the UK Government are doing. Both Governments are working together to prepare for a third phase to extend the network to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

The hon. Gentleman rightly draws our attention to last Thursday’s evidence session when, upon being questioned by me, the representative of Transport Scotland—an Executive agency of the Scottish Government—said what the hon. Gentleman has just repeated. He correctly suggests that I appeared puzzled by the reply. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Scottish political psyche. In that context, was not he too puzzled when the Transport Scotland representative said that the Scottish Government were satisfied that Scotland—Glasgow and Edinburgh in particular—were not mentioned in the Bill?

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Yes, I was puzzled, because I expected a Transport Scotland representative to give the usual SNP line, which is that everything this Government do is awful and that the Bill must be improved. I was pleasantly surprised, therefore, when he did not. I am pleased that the Governments are working closely together on the Bill, and I am delighted that the Scottish Government have decided to behave constructively.

I am disappointed, however, that the Opposition here in Westminster have decided not to be constructive. I assume that they tabled the amendment before hearing Mr Lloyd’s evidence, and I hope that they will now sensibly withdraw it. If, as has been said, the Opposition support the Bill, why are they trying to find differences where none exists? That is simply opposition for the sake of opposition, and I hope that they, like the SNP, will put that behind them in this case so that we can work together and develop an objective that we all support. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras makes a sedentary intervention. I accept that perhaps not everyone is behind the Bill, but all the major political parties in England and Scotland certainly are.

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

The hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, how partisan the Scottish Transport Minister, Keith Brown, can be from time to time—we all can, but hopefully we will not be today. I put a big question mark over some of the answers I received last week from Transport Scotland, and yesterday I wrote to the Scottish Transport Minister on the matter. What does the hon. Gentleman think his reply will be?

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I agree with one thing that the hon. Gentleman says. Mr Brown is an extremely partisan politician—one of the most partisan I have ever come across—but his agency, Transport Scotland, says that it is perfectly content with the Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows that because of the way in which the SNP runs Scotland, no Government agency representative would ever dare to go against what the Scottish Government said. If Mr Lloyd had said something that Mr Brown was not happy with, he would have had his P45 by now.

It is perfectly clear that the Governments are in agreement in their support of the Bill. Phase 1 will result in a cut to the journey time from London to Scotland, phase 2 will result in an even bigger cut, and when phase 3 is complete the journey time will be such that the route will be able to compete successfully with the airlines. I fully support the Bill, and I hope that the Opposition do too. Their amendment is completely unnecessary—opposition for the sake of it—and I hope that they will withdraw it.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I will briefly comment on amendment 23, which relates to the east midlands. It is rather odd to name the east midlands in the Bill, and the amendment is helpful in that it better describes where the station is, and that is in the Nottingham-Derby corridor. I speak as someone who was brought up in Leicestershire, and the route is a long way from the village of Cossington, where my parents still live, so it does not serve the area directly.

I also speak as the Member of Parliament for Scunthorpe county, which abuts the constituency of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), which is in Lincolnshire and part of the east midlands. East midlands suggests that it goes through the geography of the east midlands, which includes Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.

Although, as we have said previously, it will be significant for the connectivity of the broader east midlands, west midlands, Yorkshire and areas of the north-west, it seems unhelpful to have the east midlands defined in such a way in the Bill. It is a minor point, but when we are trying to give confidence to people, such minor points of accuracy are helpful.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Did my hon. Friend reflect at last week’s evidence sessions on the importance of developing further connectivity within a region, in order better to link towns and cities surrounding a high-speed stop, so as to spread those wider economic benefits? Does he feel, as I do, that when local transport authorities and local enterprise partnerships are considering future development of transport connectivity, it is helpful to have a degree of certainty on where the HS2 stop would be? I am sure he is aware that Nottingham is currently developing its tram network, including line 3, which goes in the direction of Toton but does not connect to it. As the city continues to develop its thinking around the tram network, would it not be more helpful to know that the stop is going to be on the Derby-Nottingham corridor rather than, in the more general phraseology of the Bill, in the east midlands? That opens up the prospect of other areas being considered, even though that is not a feasible option.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My hon. Friend is right. I suspect the Minister will assure us that the geographical area being looked at is between Derby and Nottingham, because that is the sensible route.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Can I put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery?

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I would be delighted.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

The poor hon. Gentleman and hon. Lady are making such a meal of this, it might be useful for me to explain that the east midlands reference in clause 1(2)(a) is to Toton. The fact is that not many people have heard of Toton, except for those in the east midlands, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire area. It was considered it would probably be more useful to put the east midlands for those not familiar with Toton. At least this is giving Opposition Members the opportunity to have a slightly bizarre debate.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The Minister would never indulge in the bizarre, I am sure. I thank him for his clarification. His clarification in many ways confirms that the description of Nottingham-Derby corridor would appropriately capture where Toton is. He will recognise that there is a debate about whether Toton or Parkway are appropriate locations. The evidence, which I listened to, tended to favour Toton. The Minister would not want to rule out proper consultation processes to clarify that. We have made the necessary points about the better description of the Nottingham-Derby corridor. I recognise that “the East Midlands” was a good try.

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

I rise to challenge some of the remarks by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, who talked of opposition for opposition’s sake. As someone who has had to interpret legislation from this place in the past, while being challenged by other people about what it means, I have often felt that some of the legislation is the product of a deranged mind. If we are talking about Toton, we should come out and say that, because if not, it will just cause problems down the line.

The hon. Gentleman also said that everyone is behind the Bill, and then slightly changed his mind and said that all the major parties are behind it. That is a classic example of the Westminster bubble. The fact is that not everybody is behind the Bill, and an awful lot of people across the country are not behind it. We have a duty to the people of this country, especially when we are spending huge amounts of public money in straitened circumstances, to ensure that the Government’s vision is understood, because at the moment it is not.

At the weekend, a couple of people said to me, “Pat, this is not going to do anything for our region. It will take our money and it will be sucked into the south-east again.” This is about facts and perceptions, and one of the facts stuck in the minds of those in the north-east is that the Government are spending £5,000 a head on transport investment in London and £5 a head on transport investment in the north-east. That hurts, and people need to know, whether they are in Scotland, the north-east or other parts of the country, that HS2 will affect them as well.

It is not just about whether everyone is behind the Bill. It is the duty of the Committee, if we are in favour of the Bill, and the Government to ensure that the vision is clearly understood. HS2 will cost a great deal of money and spending at this level will require public support across the country. That does not just mean the south-east and Yorkshire, but the north-east and Scotland too. We are under a duty with projects such as HS2 to ensure that they are not seen by the public as a rich man’s toy or yet more massive investment in the south-east.

The Olympics were referred to earlier. It was a fantastic summer of sport, but, quite frankly, for the north-east it could have been happening in China, Rio or South Africa—I know an awful lot of people, but only one of them went to the Olympics. When we are spending a lot of money, we are under a duty to engage everyone in that.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I cannot let that remark pass, because the benefit of the Olympics was not just about whether someone could get a ticket to see one of the events. There was a benefit to the regions beyond London with construction and the other services that were provided to the Olympic park, and there was cross-party support for those jobs that went to the regions. I visited the north of England to look at the millions and millions of pounds of contracted money that was spent in the north-east, Yorkshire, the north-west and the west and east midlands. The benefit to the taxpayer was spread evenly through the country.

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

I accept that, and it returns to the idea of facts and perceptions, which I mentioned earlier. The right hon. Lady may well be giving the facts, but the perceptions in the regions of this country were different.

We have a duty to ensure that if people in Scotland and the north-east are going to pay for HS2, they see and understand the benefits of it. I said that a couple of people spoke to me at the weekend. They understood that they would get a train to Leeds and then have to change train to carry on to the north-east. That is clearly not correct, so those messages are not getting out. People have to understand the Government’s vision, and the Government need to be better at engaging right across the country with the people who will pay for HS2. Putting in the Bill that high-speed rail will go to Scotland would make a difference for those in the north-east.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Will my hon. Friend confirm that if there were to be connections between Newcastle and high-speed trains to Leeds, it would be necessary to get round to electrifying the line between Leeds and York to get on to the east coast main line? Spending on that is not included in any estimate.

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

That is absolutely true, and it is one of the problems with perception. People do not understand that those trains will travel on a line between Leeds and York that is not electrified and is years away from being upgraded.

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

I am conscious of the fact that we have only seconds remaining before we adjourn.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after ‘Leeds’ leave out ‘and’.

Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, after ‘Manchester’, insert ‘and one or more towns or cities in Scotland’.

Amendment 24, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(c) provides new services to destinations including, but not limited to, Glasgow and Edinburgh.’.

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

I am delighted to resume the debate from this morning, Mr Sheridan. I rise in support of amendment 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South. If accepted, the amendment would make it explicit in the Bill that high-speed rail should be extended north from Manchester and Leeds to Scotland, including, but not limited to, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Ever since HS2 was mooted, I have argued that bringing high-speed rail to both Edinburgh and Glasgow is vital for Scotland’s economy. It is a UK-wide project—the Bill applies to Scotland as it does to England and Wales—that has my full support. For all sorts of reasons, as I will explain in due course, it is imperative that the network includes Scotland, because faster journeys will bring the constituent parts of our island closer together.

As we heard last week in the four evidence sessions from our many witnesses, those who were in support of HS2 accepted the case for high-speed rail to be extended north of the border, and some stated specifically that it should be included in the Bill. I am fully aware that the Rail Minister does not accept that and cites that the Bill, as it currently stands, does not exclude HS2 being extended to other areas. However, my simple retort to that is: not excluding something does not actually mean it will happen. That is why I would like to see an explicit reference to Scotland in the Bill to make sure it does happen, and we will therefore press the amendment to a vote.

As an aside, Mr Sheridan, although the Minister and I had a slight tiff last Thursday afternoon when he was being questioned by me during the evidence session—to be frank, I felt he was being a tad tetchy in his responses—he has certainly gone up in my estimation since I discovered the other day that he is the second cousin of my boyhood hero, the iconic David Bowie. [Interruption.] It was in the Daily Mail yesterday, so it must be true. I am convinced that even the thin white duke, driving “like a demon from station to station”, no doubt on high-speed rail, would dearly love to see those rail halts including, but not limited to, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

There is a compelling case for bringing high-speed rail to Scotland, and my ambition is to make that a reality at the earliest opportunity. The amendment for new services to destinations, including Edinburgh and Glasgow, by high-speed rail is a welcome development towards that goal and the exciting opportunities it would bring. High-speed rail is one of Scotland’s long-term economic priorities. Leading Scottish businesses have demonstrated strong support for the reduced journey times, increased productivity and potential to travel by rail rather than air, which only a network that includes central Scotland can offer.

I should like to focus on the additional services that can be provided through additional capacity. Glasgow and Edinburgh can be linked by a high-speed line as a significant step towards the inclusion of central Scotland in a UK network. Slashing journey times between Scotland’s two largest cities will enable them to compete more effectively for investment. We need to maximise this opportunity for growth and regeneration in the cities, as well as integrating the line into the wider rail network to ensure that all Scotland benefits.

The announcement of plans to extend the high-speed rail network north of Birmingham is, of course, welcome news, but it is right that all parts of the country, including Scotland, should benefit from such a significant expansion of our transport infrastructure. As it stands, the plan takes high-speed rail only halfway from London to Scotland, and there is a real necessity to extend the network further north, to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Better services would provide about £3 billion in benefits to the Scottish economy, because businesses in the cities could operate more efficiently, increasing their productivity while accessing new markets and labour pools. Firms throughout the UK would be able to look to Scotland for business opportunities that distance and congestion previously made less attractive. Tourism on both sides of the border would be boosted as the UK was opened up to faster, more convenient travel.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I wonder whether my hon. Friend will address the importance for Scotland of a potential modal shift from air to rail. As part of High Speed 1, a high-speed line was developed between London and Paris. That probably captured about 70% of the previous short-haul air traffic, obviously leading to a significant reduction in carbon emissions as well. Does my hon. Friend think the same potential exists for high-speed rail to capture the market for travel by air between Glasgow and Edinburgh and London?

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I certainly concur that we would see a shift in the modal split from air transport to rail transport. It is currently quicker to fly from Edinburgh or Glasgow to London than it is to take the train. If I use the train to travel door to door from my constituency to my office in Parliament, I go from my local station via Edinburgh Waverley to King’s Cross, and then I tube it to Westminster, which takes something like six and a quarter hours. If I was to fly, the time would be reduced to about three and a half hours. If high-speed rail is introduced into Scotland, therefore, there will obviously be a dramatic reduction in rail travel times. Most people would welcome that and would see the advantages and benefits.

Let me return to my comments. Scotland’s strong engineering base might also benefit from the employment opportunities that the planning and construction of High Speed 2 will provide. Research has shown that there is a strong business case for investment in cross-border Anglo-Scottish high-speed rail. We also know that connecting Scotland and northern England through HS2 would, as I said, secure substantial benefits by providing passengers with a realistic alternative to travelling by air.

Khalid Mahmood (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Is my hon. Friend sure that the contractual obligation in the Bill allows for local contracts to be placed? Is he sure that a significant proportion of the jobs that will be created through HS2 will be British jobs?

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I cannot directly answer that point; perhaps the Minister may take it up in due course. As this is a UK project, we would all be sympathetic—

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

Order. May I say that contracts are outwith the remit of this Bill.

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

Thank you for your intervention, Chair. I will crack on with my contribution.

Both the UK and Scottish Governments need to work to deliver this vision as part of a north-south connectivity strategy. Importantly for Scotland, bringing Edinburgh and Glasgow closer to London, as well as to the cities of the midlands and the north of England, would undoubtedly boost growth across all its major conurbations. It would also open up the opportunity for through trains to run from Scotland to Paris and Brussels.

The argument is reinforced by reports that estimate that the regional economic benefits of high-speed rail for central Scotland would be about £20 billion over a 60-year period, which compares with £5.4 billion for the west midlands. Studies reiterate that the most cost-effective option for a rail route between London and Scotland is a new high-speed route that connects London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Such a network would be expected to deliver up to £50 billion of business benefits alone. That would be felt greatly in Scotland and the north of England, as well as in the midlands and, indeed, the south. We need extra capacity on north-south routes sooner rather than later and all northern cities must be able to link into those routes. It is apparent that that might not be fully realised.

I understand that the HS2 technical director has described the construction of the UK’s high-speed rail network as the work of generations. It will be many years before England and Scotland are connected in this way.

Public opinion demands that the high-speed network be extended north of the border. Concerns have also been expressed about the lack of information about funding, costs, routes and the location of terminal stations.

To sum up, the Scottish end of the UK’s high-speed network should be built as soon as possible so that we can have the immediate benefit of a high-speed line between Edinburgh and Glasgow. I call on the Minister to provide reassurance about links to Scotland and to commit to extending high-speed rail to Scotland by providing for new services to destinations including, but not limited to, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Not only would high-speed rail boost the Scottish economy and support thousands of jobs in Scotland and throughout the UK; it would give us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape the economic geography of the whole country.

Therefore, clause 1 of the Bill should be amended by inserting the words after subsection (2) (b):

“(c) provides new services to destinations including, but not limited to, Glasgow and Edinburgh.”

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

We have had an interesting debate on this issue—although I will say, in the nicest possible way, that we have made fairly heavy weather of it. The matter is very simple. I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I say to him what I have said before. On the question of high-speed rail to Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in October last year that he would have discussions with the Scottish Government and would work with them to establish a feasibility study to evaluate the merits of the case, with the possibility of a decision on where we move forward if that is justified. I am as anxious as he is to improve connectivity, increase capacity and enhance journey times to a considerable number of places in Scotland, Wales and England, but that is for the future. Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I felt that he did not fully understand the purpose of the Bill. I shall remind him of it very tactfully.

The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the Government to be able to spend money on the preparation for a high-speed railway transport network. The Bill is designed to be on the statute book for many years to come, so that if and when other routes are added to the spine of HS2, an Act of Parliament will enable the then Secretary of State to spend money on the preparation of those extra projects. Its purpose is definitely not to itemise parts of the United Kingdom that the Committee believes should have High Speed 2 now. The Bill is relevant in the context of High Speed 2, phases 1 and 2, because those are the only decisions that the Government have taken about the next stage of High Speed 2. If it were decided that it should go to Scotland at a future date, the words “at least” would cover it, and the then Secretary of State could use the Bill to spend public money on the preparation of that part of the scheme.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

During the Minister’s comments, a light somehow came on in my head about what he thought our amendment would do. It is important that it would follow subsection (2)(b) and become paragraph (c). It is not seeking to add the construction of high-speed lines directly connecting Glasgow and Edinburgh. The network will be developed through phases 1 and 2 at least, and it is recognised, under paragraph (b), that the network

“connects with existing railway transport network”,

and the purpose of amendment 24, as opposed to amendment 6, is to provide

“new services to destinations including, but not limited to, Glasgow and Edinburgh”,

thus utilising the high-speed lines that are designed to be achieved through phases 1 and 2, plus the classic-compatible services. The amendment would provide those services and the guarantee that Scotland would benefit from the early stages of the development of the network, rather than extending the network into a future phase, which I would understand the Minister’s concerns about.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

Order. Before I call the Minister, I want to say that it would be helpful if interventions were interventions and not speeches.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Thank you, Mr Sheridan. I had chosen my words carefully. The hon. Lady has just reiterated the case that she has made during the debate. However, I was not responding to what she said, but dealing with what was said by the hon. Member for Livingston. I was trying to help him by clarifying the position and explaining the purpose of the Bill.

I shall now deal with amendments 23 and 24. My understanding of the debate so far is that amendments 5 and 6 will not be pressed, so I shall not waste the Committee’s time by discussing them. Amendment 23 would place a commitment in the Bill to construct HS2 through the Nottingham-Derby corridor, as the hon. Lady explained.

As the hon. Lady knows, clause 1(2)(a) mentions “the East Midlands”. A number of Opposition Members referred to that and seemed perplexed that Toton was not there. As I explained earlier, the reason we put the east midlands rather than Toton was because many people living outside the east midlands area would not be familiar with Toton. We thought it would be clearer to put the more generic term. As the hon. Lady recognised, the preferred site for the station is Toton, because it is equidistant between Derby and Nottingham and geographically ideal to enable the route to go further north.

However, as the Department has not yet consulted on this topic and the 2012 Command Paper referred more generally to a station being in the east midlands, this would represent a deviation from the initial plans that have been established for HS2. It would require the Government to undertake significant work to accommodate the additional locations.

Given the time scales of the consultation period for the current proposals for HS2, a likely effect of accepting the amendment would be to cause a substantial delay to the progress of the project while the potential impact on the additional locations is considered. It would also be imprudent to include them in the Bill because, as drafted, clause 1 is sufficient to embrace all the key areas of phases 1 and 2 of HS2. As the hon. Members for Nottingham South and for Livingston and others will know, there are a number of other stations and areas on the preferred routes 1 and 2 that are mentioned in the announcement of the third route that are again not in the Bill, and we have used the generic term.

Let me give an example: London. Of course, there is London Euston and there is Old Oak Common. If one looks further up the route there will be other areas where we have used a more generic term embracing a geographical area. That is sufficient. In order that the legislation can be long-lasting and effective for other stages, it includes the words “at least”, so that if a decision were taken by a Government in future to continue the high-speed route further north to Newcastle on the east side, to Glasgow and across to Edinburgh on the west side, or to Cardiff in south Wales or parts of the south-west of England, or up to Liverpool, they would be able to do that. The Government would be able to spend the money on the preparation and the work to prepare those schemes without having to seek further legislation.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Just to illustrate that point, the Bill cites Birmingham. As the Member for Meriden, which is in the Solihull metropolitan borough, I think it is important to place it on the record that the first interchange station will be in Solihull.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that all members of the Committee will appreciate that explanation and clarification. It helps my argument, for which I am particularly grateful.

Lilian Greenwood rose—

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I will give way to the hon. Lady but then I am going to make progress and not give way. I do not think that we have to spend that much time on what to us is a very simple point. I am finding it difficult that such a dog’s breakfast is being made of it.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I thank the Minister for giving way. I simply wanted to ask him to explain a little further the comment he made a moment ago that somehow the amendment would open up new costs in the development and preparation for the line. Clearly, the whole of the east midlands is a much greater area than the connecting corridor between Derby and Nottingham. I am not at all clear how restricting the location of the station to the Derby-Nottingham corridor, which after all encompasses all the shortlisted candidates for the east midlands stop, would result in further costs. Will the Minister spell that out a little more clearly?

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I can assure the hon. Lady that I have been listening carefully to what I have been saying. I was unaware that I ever mentioned extra costs. I was saying that the Secretary of State has announced his preferred route for phase 2, for which Toton has been mentioned as the station in the east midlands corridor between Derby and Nottingham. That will obviously be subject to public consultation in due course.

Amendment 24 seeks to refine the hon. Lady’s proposals further, committing the Government to continue high-speed rail lines at least to Glasgow and Edinburgh. At this stage, that would effectively force the Government to commit to constructing railway lines taking high-speed rail to Scotland at a point in the future. If we failed to do so, the Secretary of State would not be permitted to exercise the powers to incur expenditure in relation to the lines connecting the other locations specified. The amendment would not create any obligation to continue a high-speed rail line to any specific location in Scotland. It would also not impose any timetable for an extension to Scotland, any more so than it does for the locations already specified.

I warmly welcome the enthusiasm and commitment of the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Livingston and others to high-speed rail, and their commitment to seeing it in Scotland. We share a joint vision for greater capacity, greater connectivity and shorter journey times. However, I do not think that the proposals are the right way to hamstring a Secretary of State, particularly as work is commencing to study the business case, viability and need for an extension. In that respect, I think that, with the possible exception of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, we are all on the same side. The argument is about how to achieve it.

I come back to my original point. The Bill is about authorising, at this stage in the proceedings, the expenditure of money on preparing for the building of High Speed 2—initially phase 1, and phase 2 in due course—subject to Parliament passing the hybrid Bill for phase 1 and, thereafter, the hybrid Bill for phase 2. It is not a vehicle to insert into the legislation other parts of the United Kingdom where Members may wish to see high-speed rail delivered. That is done via other processes. We are considering the narrow point of simply allowing the Secretary of State the expenditure on the preparations and giving a catch-all in clause 1 so that when or if we move forward to other phases, the legislation will also allow the Secretary of State at the time to spend money on preparations by having the two critical words, “at least.”

For those reasons, I would urge the Committee, if amendments 23 and 24 are pressed to a vote, to reject them.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I am no clearer as to why the Minister is rejecting our amendments, despite having listened carefully to the points he made. I accept that the Bill does not specify every single stop referred to in the network involved in the construction of railway lines, and that it says “at least.” However, greater certainty would be provided for the east midlands if he specified the area under consideration for the interchange station.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Does the hon. Lady not accept that that commitment has by and large been given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he published his preferred route for phase 2, which specifies his preference for Toton as the east midlands station? That choice will be subject to consultation, but it is on the preferred route and where he believes the station should be.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I welcome the publication by the Secretary of State of the phase 2 route, which will go out for consultation—that is the case for all the areas mentioned in the Bill, whether Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds or Manchester. My point is simply that, having selected Toton as the preferred stop, which is on the Nottingham-Derby corridor, but recognising that another shortlisted option for the east midlands was Derby city centre station, it seems sensible to provide the clarification narrowing down from the east midlands to the Derby-Nottingham corridor.

To be honest, that would assist the neighbouring transport authorities, which must consider well in advance of the finalisation or construction of the route what they need to do to ensure the provision of connectivity. In determining the appropriateness of Toton or Derby for the stop—Nottingham city centre was another option—connections to classic rail were considered important, as were connections to light rail. I still wish to press amendment 23 to a vote, because it gives certainty and makes clear the importance of connecting to classic rail and of providing opportunities for classic-compatibles, as set out in HS2 Ltd’s options for phase 2 of the high-speed rail network, which clearly states why the shortlisted candidates in the east midlands were selected.

I simply do not accept the Minister’s assertion that the Secretary of State would be hamstrung by the inclusion of the amendment in the Bill. It does not seek to extend the high-speed network beyond what is already set out in subsection (2)(a); it simply recognises, by creating the network set out in subsection (2)(a) and the connections with the existing railway transport network as set out in subsection (2)(b), the opportunity to provide services further north to Glasgow and Edinburgh. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham said, that would provide an assurance not only to the people of Glasgow, Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland, but to places along the way that will benefit from services going north beyond the initial high-speed network, using the ability to run classic-compatible services. It would strengthen the arguments and support for high-speed rail by giving the people beyond the network that will be created in phases 1 and 2 some assurance that they, too, will be able to benefit from and enjoy those services.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

But that will happen anyway, because after phase 1 is completed, the train will run on the high-speed line as far as Birmingham, then continue all the way up to Glasgow. It will happen anyway, without the need for the amendment.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it does not necessarily have to happen anyway if the rail line is provided. If a high-speed rail line is provided from London to Birmingham, the only necessity, assuming that it is done at all, would be that services are run on that rail line. The Minister intends those services to run beyond Birmingham in the first phase and beyond Manchester in the second phase, so I do not understand why there is a problem including in the Bill the fact that there will be new services running beyond the limits of the high-speed line to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Has my hon. Friend received any indication from the Minister about spending on trains to enable some of them to go to Glasgow in phase 1 and whether the £7 billion, the present estimate for trains, will supply enough to provide that as well as the service between London and Birmingham?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. My assumption from the literature on the project is that it will provide for both high-speed trains and classic-compatible high-speed trains, and therefore allow services to run beyond the network envisaged in phases 1 and 2. However, the question about the number of rolling stock units and the range of services to be provided is for the Minister, not me.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

The answer is yes.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

The Minister says from a sedentary position that there will be sufficient rolling stock to provide those services.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Surely the hon. Lady’s last statement shows why the amendment is unnecessary. Trains will run all the way from London to Glasgow on the high-speed stretch to Birmingham, then on the normal line to Glasgow. That will happen anyway.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the Bill does not give that guarantee, although that would be an option as high-speed trains would be compatible with the classic network. It does not guarantee that services will be provided to Glasgow and Edinburgh. They may be provided only to Liverpool, Lancaster and York. The amendment simply seeks to set out the fact that those trains will be able to run the whole length of the country to Glasgow and Edinburgh using the high-speed network with classic-compatible trains. For that reason, I will press amendments 23 and 24 to a vote.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

We will come to amendment 24 after amendment 7. We will vote now on amendment 23.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after ‘railway’, insert ‘, road and airport’.

Welcome to our warm room, Mr Sheridan.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

You can always take your jacket off.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

The theme of amendment 7 is what is now called connectivity. That was called an integrated transport system at one time, but that seems to have gone out of fashion. It really means that the various bits of the transport system work if they are joined up in one way or another.

The amendment would make the Bill state that the network should connect with the existing railway, road and airport transport network. We clearly need that legal obligation because it is clear that, as presently proposed, High Speed 2 has a lot of dodgy connections—if these were electrical connections in someone’s house, the owner would get in a qualified electrician to sort them out.

As a simple example, the connection in Birmingham will not be at Birmingham New Street, which has the most extensive connections with the rest of the railway system in the west midlands, but at a small station to be known as Curzon Street. We are told that there may be proposals to unify Curzon Street, Snow Hill and Moor Street stations, but the estimates for that amalgamation are not included in those for High Speed 2, so if that great new station were created additional spending would be required.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of Birmingham city council’s plans for regenerating the east side of Birmingham and that the council safeguarded the Curzon Street site with a view to expanding the successful regeneration of the Bull Ring towards the stations he outlined. Would he not agree that the council, which has considerable assets, would be in a position to contribute towards the cost of such a regeneration project, for which the lifeline is the new station at Curzon Street?

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I must say that I thought the idea of High Speed 2 was to promote economic development and bring in some money to help create that. It now appears that spending by Birmingham city council is required for the high-speed rail network to work properly in that area. Similarly, in Sheffield it is proposed not to connect with the main railway station, but with the Meadowhall shopping centre. That is immensely valuable but, as witnesses said last week, that does not meet the requirements of a properly integrated and connected system.

In my constituency—or affecting it—there is recognition that Euston as the main London terminus is inadequate, which is why High Speed 2 proposed what is in effect a parkway station at Old Oak Common, aka Wormwood scrubs, which will be on Crossrail. I quote no greater authority than the permanent secretary at the Department for Transport who, when pressed on the possibility of overcrowding at Euston, said:

“A very important interchange between High Speed 2 and Crossrail is planned at Old Oak Common, which will provide a better way of dispersing passengers travelling into central London for many end-destinations than coming into Euston.”

Whether the proposed connections in London are in any way adequate to the task is extremely doubtful.

The other possibility—and this is why there is a reference in my amendment to airports—is that, as many have argued, we need a direct HS2 connection to Heathrow, but that is not currently part of the plan. We do not know what the Davies committee on the future of airports will say because apparently it will not report until after the next general election.

There are connections to Manchester airport and connections to Birmingham airport, but they are not as good as the ones at Manchester, as far as I can make out. There is also a proposed connection to HS1, the channel tunnel link. Anyone who claims that this was all the product of a great, integrated, connected strategy has a bit of explaining to do, because the connection between HS2 and HS1 was not there in the first proposal. Indeed, I sometimes regret ringing up the Department to say, “You can’t say it’s part of a network if it isn’t connected to HS1.” Lo and behold, they dug out another used envelope and drew up this new proposal for a connection to HS1.

It is an amateurish afterthought. The estimated cost has recently risen from a mere £500 million to £600 million. It is not the tunnel that is the problem. The proposal for a tunnel from Old Oak Common to Primrose Hill has come done in price in the latest estimate to £290 million, but the remainder of the line is above ground, wreaking havoc on Camden Town. The justification that has been put forward is that there is less construction risk in using the North London line than in continuing the tunnel. I do not know when they wrote “construction risk” and I do not know when that was related to the date on which they discovered that the cost of this construction-risk-free proposal to use the North London line had gone up from £170 million to £300 million.

In the Department’s own words this was the result of

“a more detailed understanding of the route, for example structures on the route”.

Apparently, they did not realise how wide this train was going to be. I think some sixth formers from one of the local schools could probably have measured that up better than the highly paid consultants who were doing the work. Now we have a situation where the lower construction risk proposition is running at about £140 million per kilometre, whereas the tunnel costs only £34 million per kilometre, or figures in that area. I am not quite sure how long the tunnel is and I am not quite sure from any of the literature that has been produced the exact length of the works above ground.

The question then arises in all this stuff about connectivity is whether, in the end, there will be a connection between HS2 and HS1 if the estimates are going up in that way. Officials on HS2 have told some of my constituents privately that there is no economic case for it whatever and it is being done for strategic reasons. I do not know whether it is political strategy. It certainly is not economic strategy. We therefore need to insist that the Bill is amended so that sensible connections to all forms of transport, not just the rest of the railway system, are included in the Bill.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I agree in principle with my right hon. Friend about the importance of our railway network and our high-speed network co-ordinating with other forms of transport. That gives rise to one of my concerns. His amendment refers to connections with roads and airports but not with other forms of transport, such as light rail, buses, walking or cycling. Is that an oversight in the drafting of the amendment?

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

No. I am a bit reluctant to accept that. I am usually willing to accept all my errors and shortcomings immediately, but I have always assumed, for instance, that a light rail system and the tube system are railways; we just happen not to call them that. They run on rails, so they must be railways. Also, as far as I am concerned, the reference to roads means not just the bits of tarmac or concrete, but the things that run on them. The Minister is fond of saying that the project is only going to cost £43 billion, because the rest of the money is for the trains, but we have to accept that for any form of transport to work, it needs something to run along it other than just humans galloping up and down, which seems a fairly unlikely eventuality.

I have always thought that there was a case for high-speed trains, since the first lunatic propositions from the Department for Transport. Having been around a long time has a few advantages. The Department originally proposed that the channel tunnel link should come into a huge concrete box, to be excavated and constructed under King’s Cross station. It said that the advantage of that would be that the trains would be able to run straight up to Birmingham and Leeds. I seem to have heard all this before. Then some horrible people in my area, including me, kept saying that that was a lunatic idea. I was, I think, the first person to suggest that, as St Pancras station was underused, why not use that station? That was pooh-poohed by exactly the same sort of people who are now pooh-poohing the objections of my constituents. We were never opposed to HS1 in principle, and bringing it into St Pancras was our idea, not that of the railway planners or people at the Department.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The right hon. Gentleman is making an important case for connectivity. If the Dobson link is finally built between HS2 and HS1, he can take a great deal of credit for that and his prescience in seeing the scope of St Pancras. Does he accept, however, that, inevitably, other parts of the airport infrastructure are changing their own plans for growth and development as a consequence of the routing? He mentioned Birmingham airport, which is in my constituency and which has now proposed a second runway on the other side of the proposed High Speed 2 line, whereas originally the second runway was scheduled to be further to the west. That is an example of the adaptations of our transport infrastructure to the connectivity that he is talking about. If we mention airports in the Bill, though, it could place East Midlands airport, for example, in a difficult situation, because the airport has clearly shown that it does not want a connection with High Speed 2, for reasons I do not fully understand. The amendment is too rigid.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

No one is going oblige anyone, either the Government or East Midlands airport, to have a high-speed rail station at the airport, If no one wants it, if it would not work, or if it would be a daft idea, there is no reason to go ahead with it. However, in terms of connectivity and a sensible strategic approach, there should be an obligation at all stages to consider the relationship with the rest of the transport system as a whole.

As I understand it, in the formal environmental assessment of High Speed 2 to be produced for the hybrid Bill, the Government will have to consider the environmental impact of all other forms of transport that might carry out or contribute to the task that HS2 is supposed to do. It therefore seems perfectly logical to include that obligation in the law.

I am in favour of connecting HS2 to HS1. If we are to have a high-speed network, it would not be a bad idea to connect it to the only bit of the high-speed system that we have. However, there are arguments for not bringing it into St Pancras at all, but taking it, for example, to Stratford International, which is underused. Virtually everyone there would welcome HS2 trains coming in to join up with HS1, or perhaps running right through to Paris, Brussels or wherever.

I seems sensible to me to do that mainly underground. The Department and HS2 cannot claim that they were not warned about the current proposals for Camden Town. It is not just that they were warned by me—I can dismiss myself, let alone the Department dismissing me. The representative of the Institution of Civil Engineers said in evidence to us—very mildly and diplomatically—that

“there are risks associated with bringing a line to the surface…in that particular location.”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 11 July 2013; c. 123, Q221.]

Of course, the noble Lord who followed that witness said that it was a “crazy” idea.

I want additional statutory obligations on the Department and on HS2 to consider all the necessary links that would make the scheme part of an overall strategy. If it is not part of an overall strategy, a great many of its alleged merits fall away: it needs good connections. I do not want anyone to say tomorrow that I compared HS2 to Concorde, but let me draw a parallel. Concorde cost a fortune and was going to work wonders, including for Heathrow, but from the point of view of virtually everyone who used Heathrow when Concorde was there, and since, the biggest step forward was not the fancy Concorde, but extending the tube on to Heathrow, so that people could get there, and not get off at Hatton Cross to catch a bloody bus. That is what used to happen before there was any connection. We need to recognise that if we are to have connectivity, we need the system to be connected up, and under the current proposals, it ain’t going to be properly connected up.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

For the benefit of the Committee, so that we can try to make progress rather than engage in another long and convoluted debate, I thought it would be helpful if I joined the debate earlier than I normally would. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman carefully and of course he makes a reasonable case. Everyone on the Committee would agree that HS2 needs to connect to the existing transport network. I should be surprised if anyone here disagreed with that.

HS2 will, as we have heard before, provide most benefit if it is properly integrated with our existing road, rail and airport network. The proposals provide several examples of how that can be achieved with regard to Birmingham and Manchester airports, and the potential spur to Heathrow, which is currently on hold because of the Davies commission. We cannot afford to lose the benefits of what the right hon. Gentleman describes as an integrated transport system.

I have reflected very carefully on the amendment in the past few days, and I am extremely sympathetic to the reasoning behind it, which the right hon. Gentleman has set out. I believe that there is merit in the addition of the words in the amendment to the Bill. We will need to take a careful look at the drafting, as I am sure he will appreciate, given that he is an experienced parliamentarian. I assure him that if he does not press the amendment to a Division, I will be more than happy to go away and consider the matter further, in time for something to be produced for Report later in the summer.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

It’s a deal. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out ‘includes’ and insert ‘is limited to’.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 26, in clause 1, page 1, line 19, leave out ‘includes’ and insert ‘is limited to’.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

My hon. Friends and I tabled amendments 25 and 26 to make subsections (3) and (4) clearer. The Committee has already discussed the substantial increases to the cost of the project, and we have tabled other amendments to improve accountability for that spending in the next Parliament. I do not want to pre-empt those discussions, but there are questions we would like the Minister to answer. The wording of the Bill needs to be looked at closely.

Subsections (3) and (4) permit expenditure on certain activities. Subsection (3) states

“The expenditure which may be incurred…includes expenditure on—

(a) preparation for the construction of any railway line and any other infrastructure proposed to be included at any time in the network referred to in subsection (1), and

(b) preparation for the provision of services as part of that network.”

I emphasise the phrase, “includes expenditure”. Our concern is that expenditure not be restricted to those matters set out in subsections (3) and (4). It is reasonable to suppose that expenditure may fall in other areas, otherwise the qualification “includes” would not be necessary, but it would be helpful if the Minister explained in which other areas he expects to incur expenditure, or whether this is simply an allowance for unforeseen circumstances. Greater clarity about the preparation work referred to in subsection (3)(b) would also be helpful. Does it, for example, include work on timetabling and ticketing, or is it more encompassing? Could it include the procurement of rolling stock? It would be helpful to have his comments on the record.

It is vital to have proper cost controls on the project. That has been picked up several times in our proceedings already, and indeed it formed a substantial part of the evidence given to the Committee last week. Clearly many right hon. and hon. Members and, more importantly, our constituents, are worried about it. When contemplating potentially very significant expenditure—by 2020-21, it could amount to £16 billion—there is a need to have proper cost controls in place and to set out clearly what that expenditure might include before parliamentary approval is sought for the hybrid Bill.

We accept that there is a need for flexibility on spending and we do not want to tie Ministers’ hands unnecessarily. It is important that we do full preparation for the development of the high-speed network, and we support that. However, with that degree of flexibility, there must be meaningful checks and balances, especially in the absence of the long-awaited hybrid Bill. Essentially, this preparation Bill exists to ensure that things can be done prior to that legislation being passed, and there is some concern that that could be some way off, despite the ambitious programme that the Minister set out for completing the hybrid Bill process.

I am conscious that a number of witnesses last week referred to this Bill as a blank cheque. I do not necessarily accept that, because we are seeking to put restrictions in the Bill to ensure proper scrutiny of expenditure, but I suppose it is correct in one sense, in that limits have not been placed on expenditure. We are granting wide-ranging spending powers through this Bill, and it is important that they do not allow unnecessary spending from the budgets set out at the time of the comprehensive spending review. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister why the clause is so permissive.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to explain subsections (3) and (4). I fully understand that she and her colleagues do not want a Government to be able to overstep the mark. However, let me make it absolutely clear that we will not start constructing the railway using the powers of this Bill; that is not the function of the Bill. Its function is to enable the Government to spend money on the preparatory work, and I will go into some detail of what that means in a minute.

The powers are confined to preparatory works for high-speed rail, all of which will also require Treasury approval. However, the Bill applies to all future high-speed rail lines, not just those we have announced to date—that goes back to the argument we had on proposed amendments to subsection (1)(a). That would include expenditure on lines to Scotland, Wales, the south-west or elsewhere in England if a future Government were to decide to expand high-speed rail. It is impossible for us to know now every single piece of preparatory work which may ever be needed before construction of a high-speed line, so it is sensible to ensure that the powers are flexible enough to cover all necessary preparatory works, not just those we can see on the immediate horizon. I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it would be foolhardy to handcuff ourselves to only certain activities under powers that will last for decades. That would mean having repeatedly to seek parliamentary approval, should circumstances change in future years, which would not be a good use of parliamentary time.

Subsections (3) and (4) provide descriptions and indications of the use of authorised expenditure. The phrasing regarding the preparatory works is necessarily broad, as the provision is intended not to limit the extent of expenditure that may be required for activities to prepare for the construction of high-speed rail lines. Subsection (3) pertains to expenditure on preparation for the construction of railway lines or infrastructure that will form part of the network outlined in subsection (1). The

“preparation for the provision of services”

includes, but is not limited to, negotiations with potential rail operators on the nature of the service that will be operated, and with rolling stock manufacturers on the engineering designs of rolling stock, but not on the purchase of the rolling stock itself.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

On a point of clarification, given that subsection (3) refers to expenditure “incurred under subsection (1)”, which not only covers the network in subsection (2)(a), but also the connections in subsection (2)(b), might expenditure for preparations around the whole of subsection (1)—

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Sorry, would you start again?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Might the expenditure cover preparations for connecting services, rather than just the network itself?

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

If it would help the hon. Lady, I will give her a greater explanation of subsection (4), which she also raised. It provides an indication of the types of preparatory work envisaged. Examples taken from the potential works on the planned route include preparations for procurement of specialist equipment, planning the movement of utilities, and designing the realignment of the existing railway.

Subsection (4)(b) and (c) enable the Government to incur expenditure in acquiring and providing compensation for property required for the construction of high-speed rail lines. We will have to acquire properties that lie along the proposed line of the route. There is a constitutional convention, which has been mentioned in debates elsewhere, although not in this Committee, that parliamentary authority is required for ongoing significant expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may not rely indefinitely on his common law powers. The discretionary purchase of property for HS2 falls within this category. The expenditure is due to continue, and increase significantly, as the Committee is aware.

Subsection (4) will ensure that the Government are able to acquire all the necessary land in advance of construction, avoiding potential delay. It does not include provision for compulsory purchase powers. Those powers will be contained in specific Bills for each individual phase of the construction under the hybrid Bill procedure. I hope that is helpful. Obviously, we will come later in the Committee’s deliberations to the crucially important issue of compensation and hon. and right hon. Members will have a greater opportunity to raise issues during those specific debates. For that reason, I urge the hon. Lady not to press the amendment, but if she does, I advise hon. Members not to support it.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I am inclined not to press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

Does Mrs Greenwood want a separate decision on amendment 26?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

No, I will not be moving the amendment.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out ‘and’.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 22, after ‘affected’, insert ‘, and

(d) in implementing a scheme for the issuing of transferable bonds in respect of affected properties allowing owners of such properties to require their purchase at unblighted prices.’.

Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 1, line 22, at end insert—

‘(d) in providing and maintaining a property bond system as detailed in Schedule 1 to this Bill.’.

New schedule 1—Property purchase bond scheme—

‘1 The Secretary of State or the Promoter of the High Speed Rail Scheme (the Promoter) will establish a market-based property purchase bond scheme (“the Bond Scheme”).

2 Bonds issued under the Bond Scheme are referred to as “Bonds”.

3 All owners of blighted properties will be eligible for a Bond which will transfer with a property affected by any High Speed Rail proposals or project whenever said property is sold.

4 Eligibility for the Bond will be determined by whether a property suffers or might suffer loss in value due to the High Speed Rail proposals or project.

5 The Bond will underpin the full market value of the property designated as blighted so that the property can be the subject of a mortgage or charge and be disposed of in the same fashion as if it had not been blighted.

6 The Bond will be redeemed by the Promoter only after all relevant permissions and consents for the high speed railway have been granted and if no purchaser is forthcoming at the unblighted price (making the Promoter the purchaser of last resort).

7 Nothing in the Bond Scheme will prevent any other types of compensation being added to the compensation scheme for High Speed Rail blight as a whole.’.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I take this opportunity, Mr Sheridan, to thank you for your chairmanship. I have made several interventions, but you wanted them to be short, so I have reserved my gratitude to you until I had the chance to support amendments 1 and 2.

The amendments contain a proposal for a property bond as a form of compensation for properties blighted by High Speed 2. There is of course more than one model of property bond, but I would like to try to establish in principle today an undertaking from the Government to include a property bond scheme as part of their compensation plans. I appreciate that the Government would need to consult on the model for such a property bond, which is sensible as I have indicated that there are historical examples of property bonds, which vary, and it is important that the right one is chosen.

Unless I am much mistaken, I am one of possibly only two MPs on the Committee—I think it is just the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras and I who have the line of route through our constituencies—who have the experience of trying to help constituents to secure compensation for the effects of High Speed 2 since its announcement in March 2010. For the benefit of the Committee, the compensation available at present is discretionary under a so-called hardship scheme. My experience has been that it is difficult to obtain such compensation and that there is a great deal of subjectivity in the term “hardship”. Logically, just because a property is of reasonably high value, it should not preclude a property owner from being able to secure hardship compensation. In some parts of my constituency, where the real estate values are quite high, that is one of the arguments used to defend not providing compensation. Furthermore, it came out during the oral evidence sessions that businesses are excluded from the hardship scheme. For all businesses blighted by the announcement in March 2010, there is no compensation available at present.

A subsequent compensation model that the Government have consulted on and that will kick in is based on the distance from the property to the tracks. Up to 60 metres from the tracks, there is a compulsory purchase zone. For a further 60 metres, up to a maximum of 120 metres from the tracks, there is a voluntary purchase zone. While I perfectly understand the need to protect the public purse and not to place an unnecessary burden on taxpayers, particularly at a time such as this, those tightly drawn parameters do not, in the experience of my constituents, reflect the extent of the blight.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

The right hon. Lady may be interested to know that it is at least my understanding that those rather limited distances are even more limited in Holborn and St Pancras.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Each of us with live issues and a caseload associated with people seeking compensation will know just how many cases we are dealing with, particularly in a densely populated area such as that of the right hon. Gentleman.

There are properties in my constituency that are more than 500 metres from the track. They have suffered a 20% loss in value, as estimated, for none of them has actually managed to sell. That is why I support the alternative proposal of a property bond. It would apply to all property owners affected by High Speed 2, and its primary purpose would be to give certainty to the property and business owner who faces a prolonged period of uncertainty and disruption, and the inevitable anxiety that brings.

The property bond should be valid from the date of the announcement of the scheme through to one year after its completion, so in effect it would be retroactive. From the moment the route was proposed, a blight settled on communities affected by High Speed 2. The property bond proposal that I favour is not one in which High Speed 2 Ltd would be required to purchase all the properties. The property bond is essentially a piece of paper, a transferable bond, which applies to the affected property and can be used to provide certainty and security during a transaction. It does not require the outlay of the total value of the property. It is essentially a bond that covers the difference as reflected by the blight.

To ensure that the taxpayer is treated fairly in such a compensation scheme, there would need to be a clear evidence base—something that is not subjective—for the extent of the blight. My proposal is that High Speed 2 Ltd would produce an amalgamated map showing all the impacts of the scheme: noise, dust, lights and landscape visibility. There are already clear noise contour maps around Britain’s roads, railways and airports. It is not difficult to establish the evidence base for a property bond that one could be confident of using to underpin the concept of the property bond scheme. Landowners would have to register to join the scheme. They would be registered on the Land Registry title and would remain there until the bond was redeemed. Once again, that limits the impact on the taxpayer, but it provides essential confidence and security for the landowner or the business or property owner whose property is blighted by the scheme at present.

The bond works if it confirms and guarantees that the property is due a compensation payment in the future, through the compulsory purchase of land or through compensation under part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Its effect is simply to underwrite the open market value of the property to its unblighted value until such time as formal compensation is available. If the property needs to be sold before the scheme is built or comes into operation, the property would be formally marketed with the benefit of a bond; hence the importance of the transferability of the bond. It is not unreasonable to assume that given the length of time it takes to construct a new high-speed railway, anticipated to be until 2026, a property might change hands more than once, with the bond transferring from seller to subsequent owner, and from new owner to subsequent seller. That is how the scheme would work.

Under the current compensation code, where a residual property suffers land take, compensation is paid following negotiation. Although there is provision for an advance payment, it is seldom sufficient and often not paid on entry. The property bond scheme would deliver a guaranteed sum negotiated in advance of the scheme, and the bond could be redeemed at any time once the scheme was confirmed by Royal Assent. The bond’s value would be calculated at the time of redemption and would be the value of the land taken and the injurious affection and severance claims.

Under the compensation code, where residential property suffers no land take, the earliest time that a claim can be made is a year after the scheme is in use, which could be more than 20 years away, and the heads of claim are very limited. The bond would allow the value of a property to be underwritten, so that if it was sold the vendor could either redeem the bond and thus be compensated for his loss, or sell the property with the benefit of the bond.

Under this particular model of property bond scheme it is proposed that if there is an intention to market a property that benefits from a bond, a notice of intention to sell should be served on High Speed 2 Ltd. High Speed 2 would need to be informed about any property that is proposed for sale under the property bond scheme, so that it could take account of the likely call on the difference between the blighted and the unblighted price. If the intention was to redeem the bond, High Speed 2 would require the necessary valuation evidence to justify the claim at least a month before the sale. That is a very important point, because at present, in order to demonstrate the unblighted price of the property, we are already talking about looking at property market prices between the back end of 2009 and March 2010. The further we get from that date, the harder it is to prove what the original price would have been.

On non-residential property, the blight of a major infrastructure scheme—certainly for agricultural and other businesses—takes a different form from that for residential owners. For individuals in that category, be they urban or rural landlords of tenanted properties, owner-occupiers or tenants, the blight is one of uncertainty and the difficulty of predicting the timing of the loss of land, buildings or access, as well as the difficulty of the predicted quantum of the eventual compensation. The scheme would allow compensation to be negotiated and the principles to be agreed well before the parliamentary process is completed, thus giving some certainty about the compensation that will be paid and allowing the business to consider its future reinvestment flexibly. For that aspect of the scheme I give credit to the Country Land and Business Association. When it gave evidence to the Committee last week the association made it very clear that there is a real predicament for landowners and farmers who are on the line of the route. I foresee the value of the bond as assisting businesses at an early stage of the scheme to make ongoing business decisions.

Many critics of property bond schemes cite the example of Heathrow. I refer the Minister to two other examples where the property bond has operated successfully. I am sure that there will be a record in the Department of the Central Railway property bond scheme, which—although it never came to fruition—got a long way down the track, if the Committee will forgive the pun, to the extent that a building society such as the Halifax, for example, stood ready to operate such a bond scheme for properties blighted in that way.

By the same token, I refer the Minister to the proposal for a property bond scheme that was announced by Birmingham airport after the publication of the aviation White Paper and the appearance of a proposed second runway at Birmingham, which immediately had the effect of blighting a village in my constituency. The airport voluntarily came up with a property bond scheme. It happened to be based on decibels as a qualifying contour, but it provided certainty for residents in a qualifying area around the airport so that they could move on with their lives if they needed to.

The situation at the moment, when very limited compensation is available, is that we have constituents who are caught in a bind; they need to move but they are not considered to be hard up enough for the hardship scheme. That is causing considerable distress to the people we represent and to their loved ones. Whatever the reason for the need to move—it could be ill health or employment—it is proving very difficult under the hardship scheme to get people the help that they need.

I strongly commend to the Minister the concept of the property bond; it would offer a way forward to large numbers of our constituents, in business and domestic properties, who are adversely affected but caught in a bind where they are unable to transact. Above all, a bond would provide certainty and confidence to those property owners, and would allow the normal market process to proceed.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I shall speak in support of the amendment standing in the names of the right hon. Lady and myself. Much to my astonishment, I also find myself supporting an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash); all people are capable of redemption.

It is impossible to exaggerate what a mess the present situation is for people and businesses affected by the proposals. It has been going on a long time already and is going to go on for a lot longer. The route was outlined before the previous general election; if the work is finished on time—that is rather an exceptional concept in this country—it will be another 13 years from now before construction finishes. People have already put up with four years of uncertainty about what is going to happen to them if they want to move—and not only if they want to move, as there are other considerations as well. Those people will be blighted for the best part of two decades. That is a long time in anybody’s life.

A substantial number of people will wish to sell up and move, and get a job somewhere else or retire to the Costa Brava, or whatever it is they want to do. However, they are not in a position to get what was the full value of their property before the scheme was announced. They will have had 17 years of not knowing, which is a long time for them to have to put up with. We should not tolerate that.

The worst affected group in my constituency are people who exercised their right to buy and are now right-to-buy leaseholders. Even if we get a bond scheme, the chances are that the price they might get for their flat, even if unblighted, will not enable them to buy a comparable flat—remember that some of those people will be forced out, as their homes are going to be demolished—and so they will not be able to continue to live in the area. I therefore think that some special measures are needed to deal with their situation.

I shall give one or two examples of the problems that people face. A woman who is the owner of a small flat, or a flat in a house, near Drummond street close to Euston station has been in touch with me. She was the owner-occupier of the premises but has got a job somewhere else so has moved to live where her work is. However, she cannot sell her flat because she has, quite sensibly, been letting it to get a bit of money in after moving out. Her application has therefore been turned down by the hard-faced people who run the exceptional hardship scheme; as far as she is concerned, they are running a scheme to perpetuate exceptional hardship, not to relieve it. She thinks she has been treated unreasonably, as do I. If the terms of the exceptional hardship scheme need to be varied in order to cope with her particular circumstances—and there cannot be that many people in those circumstances—I think it would be only right and proper to do so.

It is all related to valuation. Some people might want to sell or, in some cases, people running a business would like to borrow against the value of their home in order to get finance to expand their business. They are in severe difficulties; values have been reduced. There is evidence in various parts of the country that the uncertainty has reduced residential property values by about 40%. That is an awful lot to do without in those circumstances.

Other things had not occurred to me until one of the people possibly affected drew them to my attention. People who live above the tunnel in the Primrose Hill area have been told by civil engineers that there will be no vibration that will affect their homes. Knowing a little bit about tunnels, I am prepared to accept that that is probably true. Even they are prepared to accept that it is probably true, but would-be purchasers are not. The value of anywhere is in the pocket of the purchaser, not the vendor, in the perception of the purchaser. There is a situation there in relation to the scheme proposed by the right hon. Member for Meriden, where it would need to last a bit longer, and not close down a year after the building works were completed. Someone would probably need to demonstrate for about two or three years that the place was not vibrating and shaking to bits when the train came through. We need to look carefully at all those things.

Various types of property bond are being proposed. They are all based on the concept that owners of blighted property will be eligible for a bond underwritten by the promoter of the project. It transfers with the property if it is sold. Their eligibility would be decided by the property suffering loss in value due to HS2. The bond would underpin the full unblighted value of the property and give confidence both to a potential purchaser and to mortgage lenders, so that the money would eventually be forthcoming. The trigger point for sales to the promoter if all else fails would be when planning permission was granted.

There have been adverse comments about the Sipson scheme at Heathrow, but that is not a parallel at all. That scheme was, in effect, property purchasing by the British Airports Authority. It suited it to buy up as much property there as anybody was willing to sell, even at the unblighted price, because it hopes ultimately to be able to knock it all down and build an extra runway. Therefore, that is not a property bond scheme at all. Certainly, its motivation—to be instigated, or whatever the term is, before there was any planning consent, but against the possibility—was a result of legitimate pressure from Members of Parliament trying to represent the people in the area. However, it was also in BAA’s interest to buy up the property because it thinks that, in the long run, it will suit its needs.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The right hon. Gentleman is making a good point about why the Heathrow example is not a parallel to the model that I have proposed. It is because the property bond that we have discussed is essentially a piece of paper not requiring the proposer of the project to buy the entire property. In fact, the evidence from High Speed 1 is that, once the piece of infrastructure is built, the perceived blight often falls away. In terms of the burden on the public purse, it is a guarantee for the person who needs to sell, but in practice few of those who have the bond will need to put it into action, because once the project is built and the real blight can then be seen by all, and experienced, the perceived blight, which vastly exceeded the real blight, becomes the underlying factor.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I agree with every word that the right hon. Lady said. I advocate the amendments and the new schedule.

The right hon. Lady and myself are not claiming that our propositions are perfect. They have been put forward by representatives of people who will be affected in this way. I hope that the Minister will at least say that he accepts in principle that some scheme along these lines is needed, and that he will authorise his officials, and HS2’s—I do not know who the right people are in such circumstances—and probably Ministers as well, to meet representatives of the people who are advancing these important proposals, including Hilary Wharf, who has done a huge amount of work for people generally, and particularly for people in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), to try to thrash out a scheme that meets the needs of everyone concerned—and I mean everyone.

There is a complex list of people in slightly different circumstances. If we accept that nobody should be worse off as a result of HS2—most people probably accept that—we need a scheme that is not too rigid and does not say, for example, to the woman in my constituency who has moved home to take a job somewhere else and sensibly lets it, that she no longer counts as an owner-occupier and therefore cannot benefit from the exceptional hardship scheme.

I hope that the Minister accepts the general concept of such a bond—I not sure whether it is a principle—and works with all concerned to come up with one that fits the bill.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I welcome the opportunity to comment in the debate. This group of amendments is designed to insert a property bond scheme into the paving Bill. That idea was raised and supported by a number of witnesses last week. I listened closely to those arguments and am listening to the case advanced by the right hon. Member for Meriden and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I have a great deal of sympathy for their case, particularly in respect of constituents whose lives have already been blighted, or will in future be blighted, by the development of the project.

My only reservation is whether it would be appropriate to insert a particular compensation scheme into the Bill at this stage, before the Government have issued their new compensation consultation. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about when he intends to issue that consultation, because my right hon. Friend suggested that that might be some way off. I hope that the Minister has listened to the proposals and will not only say something about what might be in that compensation consultation, and when it might take place, but will, in finalising the scheme that is going to be consulted on, take into account the ideas that have been advanced.

We share the concerns about compensation, particularly those expressed by a number of witnesses in evidence to the Committee. We tabled our own amendment on compensation, and we will continue to press the Minister further later.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

This has been an extremely useful and helpful debate. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden for the considerable work she has done on behalf of her constituents on compensation and the property bond, and to be fair, to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, who is not present today. They have all done a lot of work, not simply as constituency MPs, but in addressing the general problem. There is always a problem when a large infrastructure project will encroach on people’s homes or on other properties, and it is crucial to have a scheme that is fair and generous, particularly in this case, to help people who may be adversely affected.

The right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden made the point that we do not know the numbers. There is the example of Kent, where there was short-term blight, but it recovered. Each project is individual and previous projects do not provide complete lessons, but there are themes.

I can give my right hon. Friend and the Committee an assurance, but it may not be the assurance they are looking for and I will explain the reasons. There were 10 judicial review cases against the Government’s procedures for moving forward with HS2. The one case that the Government lost was on the consultation on the compensation scheme. We are anxious to have a compensation scheme that addresses the issue and the problems, and commands as broad support as possible. The judge found the consultation process on the compensation scheme to be deeply flawed and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State immediately accepted that decision, so we made no attempt, even for a moment, to consider appealing against it.

We gave a commitment that we would rerun the consultation, addressing the particular points and criticisms that the judge made of the earlier consultation process. As many hon. Members will know, a key problem that the judge found, among others, was the way in which the property bond was dealt with. We have said that we will rerun the consultation, learning the lessons and accepting the judge’s criticisms, and that will be done shortly. I cannot be more precise than that, but it will certainly be done during the summer and autumn, which is “shortly” in Government terms.

I can give an assurance, which I hope will reassure both right hon. Members and others, that we have fully embraced the criticism, particular concerning the property bond part of the consultation process, and that mistake will not be made. We will explain the options and systems fully as part of the consultation. We obviously want as many individuals, bodies, organisations and interested parties as possible to contribute to the consultation so that when it has been completed, as with all consultation, we can consider the responses and then move forward with a compensation scheme to fit the Government’s aims and aspirations while being fair and generous in providing help to those who will be affected adversely.

I cannot anticipate what the balance of the responses to the consultation will be. Some may be passionately in favour of a property bond scheme; others may be more attracted to another form of scheme. I also cannot anticipate what the final decisions will be, because it will be an open and fair consultation process. We will go into it and consider the responses with an open mind, and then reach a decision. That is a commitment I can give the Committee. What I cannot do, for the reason that I just outlined—it is premature—is accept the amendments or new schedule 1, because that would be putting the cart before the horse. We must have a consultation process. Who knows what will emerge? It is probably wise of me not to speculate, but I can give the assurance that it will be open and full, as the consideration of the responses will be, before we reach a final decision on what form of compensation scheme emerges to redress the problems with the first process.

In light of that, I hope that my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendments and embrace the compensation consultation when it starts later this year.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I was well aware that because of the timing of the need to re-consult on compensation, it would be difficult for the Minister to agree, much as I would like him to, to the model that I outlined. However, given that these proceedings are broadcast and that an awful lot of people are watching and listening closely to what he and we Committee members have to say on the difficult issue of compensation, I am sure he will agree that it was important to debate the issue in this Committee.

However, I hope that the Minister will heed what the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras said and steer his officials away from looking at just one sample of the property bond and towards looking at some of the other property bond schemes proposed, perhaps including some that more closely resemble what organisations such as the Country Land and Business Association and I were striving for in terms of the fairness that the Minister referred to. I am sure that the words “fairness and generosity” will not have gone unnoticed, not only within this Committee but by the wider audience listening to these proceedings. I take on board fully his point about the need to consult carefully the second time around, but I would sincerely like an undertaking that the property bond will be one of the options in the consultation. If he can give me that undertaking, I will withdraw my amendments.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As she said a minute or two ago, there are different views on different types of property bond, and I accept that. Particularly in the light of the experience of the first, flawed consultation process, there will of course be an opportunity within the new consultation process to consult fully on the possibility of a property bond, in whatever shape or form, as well as other forms of compensation. It will not be exclusively on the property bond, but I can assure her that we have learned the lessons from the first time around. A property bond will feature as part of the consultation process.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

On that basis, I will withdraw my amendment. I am grateful to those who have helped me as a constituency MP with the details of different schemes and background information material. I thank our absent colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, for her assiduous attention to the compensation I mentioned—the words “fair and generous”, uttered by the Minister, will bring great comfort to her.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 22, after ‘providing’, insert ‘generous’.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Definition of compensation—

‘The Secretary of State shall as soon as reasonably practicable after the day this Act is passed establish an independent and objective process to determine what shall be deemed a generous scheme for providing the compensation referred to in section 1(4)(c), and shall direct that that process itself take place expeditiously.’.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I welcome the Minister’s generous references to “generous”, but I am not sure that we can leave the plain word “compensation”. When officialdom says, “We will be generous. We will be fair,” most people are a bit dubious—I am not being personal about the Minister. Similarly, the more

“he talked of his honor”,

the more

“we counted our spoons”.

The more officialdom talks about generosity and fairness, the more people wonder what they are up to.

The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to pursue the idea of qualifying “compensation” in some way, to be favourable to its would-be recipients. The alternatives are skimpy, skinflint, Scrooge-like, miserable or barely adequate—they would all be compensation, but not what most in Committee would like people to get. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have talked about generous compensation, and if they can talk about it, why should we not put it into statute? That would scare the Treasury and upset parliamentary drafters, but there is scope for adding “generous” or some other word.

To be brief, we need something to qualify and improve the plain, crude word “compensation”, because everyone in the Room and most people in the country can remember encountering some compensation that fell a long way short of meeting their requirements.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

To be brief, we want all sensible mitigation measures to be put in place, to ensure that compensation does not need to be paid in the first place. We have pressed the Minister on that previously, but we have continuing concerns about compensation, which we will discuss later. I understand my right hon. Friend’s point about wanting compensation to recompense people adequately and about including “generous”, although I am not sure how easy it is to define the word in law.

All of us in Committee welcome the assurances given by the Minister and the fact that the Government will carry out a review of compensation as they prepare to release the new consultation. I am not sure that we need two reviews, as set out in new clause 1, but we want to see the text of the new consultation as soon as possible. I was listening to the Minister earlier, but I am not absolutely sure that I caught what he said. I am somewhat concerned that he might have suggested that the compensation consultation would not commence until the autumn—

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I said shortly—the summer.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Perhaps the Minister will clarify that in his concluding remarks. I wondered if he could give us a bit more clarity about when the consultation will start and how long it will run for. Does that have any implications for the timetabling of the hybrid Bill? We want to keep an eye on the overall legislative timetable for the development of the high-speed rail network.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I reiterate that we are still working on the details of the rerun consultation on the compensation scheme arising out of the High Court judgment. We hope to initiate it shortly, in other words later in the summer. That is as far as I can go at the moment because work is still progressing. Obviously in the light of the history, we are determined to get this right. We do not want to cut corners. The hon. Lady perfectly reasonably asked how long the consultation period would last. The normal convention for many consultation processes is 12 weeks. Again, that is something that we are considering as part of our review of how to move forward in a positive way.

I do not want to rehash our debate on the last group of amendments, as in some ways this is a similar debate. I would just like to say briefly that the Government are committed to establishing a fair and generous package of compensation for property owners affected by the scheme. We already have compensation schemes in place: one is for the safeguarded route; the other is the exceptional hardship scheme for phase 1. We have made it quite clear that we brought that in to help alleviate a short-term problem. There was no statutory requirement to do so but we brought it in because we wanted to help people over the route of phase 1 who were having to leave due to exceptional hardships. I have heard the comments of different hon. Members about the scheme, but I believe it has made a positive contribution to helping people. I also accept that some hon. Members would not share that view. The critical thing is to ensure that we establish over the longer term a proper compensation scheme. That is why we will carry out a further review.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Is there any objection to including the word “generous” or some equivalent word that has been used by Ministers? It might be said that there would be difficulty in interpreting it, but I suspect there will be one or two pre-nuptial cases in civil law where the judges have decided what the word “generous” meant which could tie things down.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

The right hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. It is difficult to come up with a definition of “generous” that means the same to all people. It would be fairly meaningless in a legal way to have such a relatively nebulous description in statute. I do not think that is the way forward. The most important way forward is to ensure that we get it right with the consultations on the compensation scheme and draw the conclusions from that, so that we have a compensation scheme that fits the criteria that everyone in this room and elsewhere wants, which is a fair and generous settlement. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.