Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) I beg to move, That this House calls
on the Government to provide compensation to people who have been
affected by the construction of HS2. I have called this debate on
High Speed 2 compensation as I am concerned about how my
constituents in Stafford are still being treated by HS2 Ltd, and I
wish to raise their serious complaints directly with the Rail
Minister and to hear what he is going to do to address them. Since
the Prime...Request free trial
(Stafford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to provide compensation
to people who have been affected by the construction of HS2.
I have called this debate on High Speed 2 compensation as I am
concerned about how my constituents in Stafford are still being
treated by HS2 Ltd, and I wish to raise their serious complaints
directly with the Rail Minister and to hear what he is going to
do to address them.
Since the Prime Minister made the decision to cancel phase 2 of
the HS2 rail project from Birmingham to Manchester, many people,
including constituents of mine, have been left in limbo, with no
information about what is happening with their properties or
land. This issue affects numerous constituencies and I thank the
many colleagues from across the House who are here to support
this important debate today, including many neighbours in
Staffordshire such as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield
(), my right hon. Friend
the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir ) and my hon. Friend the
Member for Stone ( ).
Today I am calling for all outstanding HS2 compensation claims to
be resolved. I will set out a number of examples in my
constituency that demonstrate that the issue of HS2 compensation
is still a long way from being concluded and must be dealt with
by the Government. Let me start by thanking the constituents who
have contacted me, sharing their stories and highlighting how HS2
is deeply affecting them. Several other constituents who
previously asked me to raise their case have now asked me not to
mention them by name today. I am outraged to discover they have
been intimidated by HS2 to do this. In one surgery appointment I
was told that a constituent was told, “It would not be good for
you to get your MP involved, as that would be bad for your case.”
This is completely unacceptable behaviour by HS2 Ltd and I want
to call it out today.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest, not in this case but as a farmer because I
understand that HS2 has been contacted by some in the National
Farmers Union on this matter. Does the hon. Member agree that to
demand land from farmers and not to compensate them quickly and
effectively can never be acceptable, and that if a farmer can
show loss of earnings, they should receive compensation for that?
I understand they currently do not.
The hon. Member is absolutely right, and if he bears with me, I
will specifically come on to compensation to farmers and the
points the NFU has raised.
(North West Leicestershire)
(Ind)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Let me make some progress and I will give way in a few
minutes.
I want all those seeking compensation to know that they have not
been forgotten. I am speaking up for them all today, to ensure
their views are heard at the highest levels of Government. Since
being elected as the Member for Stafford, I have raised the issue
of HS2 compensation six times in this House—six times—and I have
still not had all of my outstanding local claims resolved. That
is not acceptable when HS2’s behaviour towards my residents has
been shocking. In addition, I have contacted numerous relevant
Ministers and spent hundreds of hours working on the issue,
visiting affected constituents and advocating for them.
My first piece of casework as a new MP involved a constituent who
experienced the most awful mental health crisis because of the
stress of the compensation process. I thank my right hon. Friend
the Member for Pendle (), who as a Rail Minister
worked constructively with me on that case. I appreciate, too,
that the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and
Battle (), has also met me recently to discuss these
issues.
When the Prime Minister announced back in October last year that
the phase 2 of HS2 north of Birmingham would be cancelled, I
welcomed it as I have long believed that HS2 is a folly. In
November the Prime Minister stated that
“we are committed to fair treatment for people affected by the
changes”.[—[Official Report, 15 November 2023; Vol. 740, c.
642.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=740&ColumnNumber=642&House=1)
While I applaud the Prime Minister’s sentiments, there should
absolutely be fair treatment for all those affected by the
changes, so today I ask the Minister to ensure that HS2 Ltd pays
compensation fairly. That is the crucial question made even more
pressing in light of the Secretary of State’s comments back in
November when he said he thinks that those affected by HS2
“have been properly compensated according to the law”.
I am sorry to say that that is not the case. I will go into more
detail about why there has not been proper compensation in
several instances.
When the HS2 route was announced over a decade ago, the value of
property and land along the route immediately dropped. The land
and properties had become blighted, and we had to set up a very
complex compensation system. Those going through the process were
advised to hire private agents to assist them through the
negotiating process, but I have heard from numerous people that
the complexity of the process has meant that they were offered
far smaller sums in compensation than the property was worth
because of HS2. This process is not only complex but also
extremely slow and I am now being told those living along the
cancelled phase 2 route who wish to repurchase their property are
doing so at a far higher price. This is clearly unacceptable. Why
on earth should we be penalising residents who have already been
forced to sell their property and land due to the Government
building a railway line through their homes?
(Lichfield) (Con)
I have a constituent called Siân Froggatt, and she had a
compulsory purchase order made against part of her farm,
involving land that is the only way she can access her farm.
Three times she has petitioned HS2 to buy it back, but it says
no, and the land will now go on to the open market. How can that
be right—I hope the Minister will address this—when the railway
line will not even be going alongside? She is willing to pay back
the money for her land that was compulsorily taken off her.
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I agree
with everything he said. I will give an example from a
constituent of mine in a similar situation. Andrew Collier is a
farmer in Stafford farming 650 acres. HS2 purchased just over
half his land, and some of that land was earmarked for utilities.
The land was taken before harvest time, and he asked HS2 Ltd for
permission to harvest his crop. HS2 said it would allow him to do
that, so the crop was harvested, but then HS2 Ltd gave the crop
to someone else and did not pay him for it. Mr Collier applied
for compensation, hoping that it would swiftly arrive. Of course,
that did not happen.
Instead, Mr Collier waited for two and a half years for HS2 to
compensate him. I emphasise that to the Minister. Even now, he is
still owed hundreds of thousands of pounds to cover two years of
lost harvests and other outstanding claims. He tells me that two
members of his family who worked on the farm have now had to
leave, because the remaining farmland is too little for them to
work on. Due to the compulsory purchase of his land and the long
delays in receiving compensation, he told me in his surgery
appointment that his farm is now no longer financially viable.
Compounding those issues, his sacrifice is now seemingly in vain,
because HS2 phase 2 has been cancelled and the land is lying
fallow.
That example is why this debate today is so important for raising
this issue. There is a fundamental lack of transparency and
fairness in this entire process, and I believe it is causing real
harm to my constituents. How HS2 Ltd deals with compensation
appears to be completely divorced from practical realities on the
ground.
Another example is a local golf club, the course of which is in
the middle of the countryside in my constituency. Club members
were devastated when they heard that the HS2 route would cut
straight through the middle of it. What is to happen now?
Similarly, my constituents Jean and Trevor Tabernor own a farm.
HS2’s route meant that their farm would be spared, but their
farmhouse was demolished. Their new farmhouse is nearly
completed, and they have been seeking the last instalment of
money to finish the work. As we all would expect, that needs to
be finalised as soon as possible so that they can complete the
construction of their home. However, they are facing delays, and
now that the line has been cancelled, HS2 is trying to place
restrictive clauses on them “in perpetuity”, just for my
constituents to receive what they are owed. Those clauses are
clearly so that HS2 can maximise the value of its assets. HS2 Ltd
is literally the only thing standing between them and their new
home. Again, I ask the Minister: what will happen to resolve
that? It is affecting people’s lives and we simply cannot wait
any longer for an answer.
I turn to businesses affected and, in particular, how unsuitable
the compensation process is for farmers. In our recent meeting,
my hon. Friend the Minister recognised that there are specific
issues relating to farmers. I note that in his response to my
hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (), he publicly stated that
“of the land that HS2 has, about 81% has been let back out to be
able to be utilised…I want to make sure that we can better
understand from the farming community what can be done with the
land that is no longer needed”.
I thank the Minister for those words. I know he has met the
National Farmers Union, as indeed have I in Staffordshire, and
others to better understand these issues.
The point that I wish to make is that if unused land is not
preserved in its state on the day before farming ended, it will
start slowly to deteriorate. For cropland in particular, that
means that the land being returned to farmers will have to be
rehabilitated, currently at the farmer’s expense. When we
consider farmland, it is clear that the compensation process is
causing major financial issues by depriving farmers of the land
that they farm and their ability to forward plan.
I also have examples of constituents who had not yet reached an
agreement with HS2 Ltd when the Prime Minister made his
announcement. May I ask the Government not to forget about those
residents, who also need to have their compensation resolved?
On how HS2 Ltd proposes to dispose of phase 2 land, following the
cancellation of phase 2 it has consistently told residents and
business owners that it must act to ensure value for money for
taxpayers. As a Conservative, I support that in principle, but
value for money in this context appears to mean short-changing
those from whom it has purchased land and property. The issue
with the proposal is simple: HS2 Ltd is focusing purely on
ensuring that it receives the highest price for the land and the
properties it has compulsorily purchased, but there appears to
have been little thought given to those whose lands have been
taken off them and wish to have them back. The NFU has
highlighted the issue and is calling for a simpler and cheaper
process for returning land; I very much support that.
As part of the process, most property and landowners who had
their land compulsorily purchased will be offered the right of
first refusal under the Crichel Down rules. However, the value of
the lands now will naturally be higher than when it was blighted,
and they will also be higher because land and property prices
have increased in general. Farmers in particular, and all those
affected, tell me that they are having to buy back their own land
at a far higher cost. That is unfair. I would like the Minister
to look at that again. If the right to first refusal is not
taken, what will happen to that land and property? Someone will
purchase it and, particularly with farmland, there is an
additional danger that developers and land bankers might be keen
to buy it, which would completely transform the make-up of former
rural communities.
There has been a serious lack of transparency from HS2 throughout
all this. I was shocked to read recently that the chief executive
of HS2 Ltd revealed that the cost of phase 1 has already
increased by £10 billion to £66.6 billion—what a horrific waste
of taxpayer money.
Finally, I raise the importance of the Handsacre link, which
would bring HS2-compatible trains to Stafford. It was advertised
as the reward for the people of Stafford for enduring so many
years of issues associated with the project. It would ensure that
phase 1 is completed, and a lot of the works required to
construct it are under way. I raised the rail link previously, in
April last year, when I was assured by the Secretary of State for
Transport that the works would continue to progress, but I hear
rumours that it is to be cancelled. That would be not only a
betrayal of my constituents and a waste of the time and resources
put into the construction that has already been completed,
but—this is a key point—a breach of the legislation that
specifies that it must be built. Will the Minister reassure my
constituents that the Handsacre rail link will be completed?
This debate is important because my constituents are still living
in uncertainty. The processes surrounding HS2 compensation are
flawed, and HS2 Ltd continues to behave disgracefully. Finally,
may I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to visit me in Stafford
to talk directly to my constituents and see at first hand how the
delays and the lack of fair payments is affecting them, and ask
him to commit today to doing something about that? HS2
compensation must finally be resolved.
3.54pm
(Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Stafford () for securing this debate.
As Members may know, parts of my constituency lie directly above
the HS2 tunnels in the Chiltern hills, where the tunnel boring
machines are due to surface. Particularly affected have been
those living near the five vent shafts near Chalfont St Peter,
Chalfont St Giles, Amersham, Chesham Road and Little Missenden.
For some, the impact has been so severe that they have felt
unable to continue living in their homes. Decisions to move are
never taken lightly, and they have invariably brought them into
contact with HS2’s various compensation schemes.
I wish to focus on the experiences of constituents with one
particular scheme: the special circumstances or atypical
properties scheme. The scheme was set up in recognition that some
residents and businesses near the HS2 route may need assistance,
despite not meeting the eligibility requirements of other
schemes. The first case I shall share is that of a constituent
who lived in close proximity to one of the vent shafts. They
experienced the construction of a haul road immediately outside
their property. Where once there had been a country lane used
largely by local residents, now there was a large road with HGV
traffic travelling up it night and day. In addition, a 3-metre
high embankment was constructed immediately in front of their
house, ruining their view, their privacy and the value of their
property.
Faced with at least another year of construction work and the
permanent blighting of their property, my constituents
reluctantly decided to seek compensation from HS2, which would
allow them to move. They had this to say about their
experience:
“Dealing with HS2 and its contract partners has been a nightmare.
They will not properly engage regarding compensation and on other
matters they continually delay answering questions, provide
incorrect and contradictory information, change their plans
without proper notice or consultation and have no regard for the
wellbeing of the community.
They block all attempts at proper dialogue, ignore questions and
hand matters to different teams to delay things further. If we
complain we might get a half-hearted apology for the time taken
to respond at all, but nothing changes.”
Thankfully, after much stress and inconvenience, the Government
eventually bought my constituent’s property at unblighted value,
under the special circumstances or atypical properties scheme.
But it should never have been that hard. The delays,
contradictory information, changing of plans at short notice and
half-hearted apologies led to unnecessary delay, distress and
upset. It did not have to be that way.
The second case I shall briefly share involves constituents who
moved to their home in 2007—two years before HS2 was announced.
Where previously the enjoyed starlit nights, they now faced
floodlights on at all hours. The disturbance and upheaval took a
toll on my constituent’s mental health, resulting in their making
the difficult decision to sell their home. HS2 initially sought
to steer the couple towards the need to sell scheme, which would
have forced them to sell their property at market value rather
than the considerably higher unblighted value.
After much wrangling, including intervention from my office, HS2
agreed to consider the couple as an atypical case. Part of the
problem was that there is no formal application process. The
process is opaque. Unfortunately, HS2 agreeing to consider my
constituents as an atypical case was in many ways just the
beginning. The couple emphasised how degrading the process to
finally being accepted was. Despite providing GP and support
worker details to HS2 more than once, they continued to receive
repeated requests for ever more information, with each request
bringing up renewed worry and stress.
Both the cases I have referenced today eventually resulted in the
individuals being accepted to the special circumstances or
atypical properties scheme, but the process to get there was
protracted, stressful and awful. That is what I want to
highlight. The schemes need to be administered swiftly, fairly
and with compassion. I sincerely hope that the Minister will
reflect on those experiences, and that lessons can be learned to
ensure that those affected can get a speedy resolution and are
treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.
3.59pm
Sir (South Staffordshire)
(Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford () on securing the debate. We
have already heard from the first two speakers how people’s lives
have been impacted by this scheme. Many of us, right across
Staffordshire, were delighted when we heard the news back in
October that the Prime Minister had taken the right decision in
cancelling phase 2 of HS2. Many of us had been campaigning for
that and we were so delighted to hear the news.
HS2 had already spent £208 million on the purchase of land for
phase 2a alone, and that was even before the major construction
work was to start. There was a hope and a belief that the land
that had been purchased would be returned to the owners and it
would all be resolved incredibly quickly. I am afraid to say,
however, that even though the announcement was made in October,
there remains an enormous amount of uncertainty, an enormous
amount of concern and a total lack of clarity for many people who
are impacted by the scheme.
As the new year begins, we need clarity on when land will be
returned. We need to have an understanding of when the selling of
land by HS2 is to start. We need to have an understanding about
those people who have had their homes taken from them. When will
they be in a position to buy back their homes? When will they be
in a position to know what the rules are and what their future
may hold?
I appreciate that the Minister has, just today, lifted the
safeguarding on phase 2a. I think all of us very much welcome
that, but it still leaves many questions that need urgent
clarity. I understand that the Department for Transport has said
that the return of land will
“take time because the Department for Transport needs to make
sure the programme provides value for money for taxpayers and
does not disrupt local property markets”.
It also says:
“there remains a significant amount of work to do”.
I am sure there is a significant amount of work to do, but there
has been a considerable period of time to do that work, and
people’s lives are on hold and their nerves have been frayed.
Many people just do not know what their future holds. They cannot
move on until the Minister and HS2 give them the certainty and
the clarity that is required.
I want to touch on a couple of examples that have been sent to
me. There is, sadly, a lot of fear among many Staffordshire
residents about how HS2 acts. It acts sometimes in quite an
imperious manner, without necessarily the care, consideration or
consistency that one would hope for from a Government-owned
organisation.
One example relates to a farming business. Temporary possession
started in 2022, with HS2 taking around 3 acres for environmental
mitigation. The family objected to the land being taken on a
temporary basis, as they did not want to be responsible for the
future maintenance of all the things that were being put on it.
Further grazing land of approximately 100 acres was taken under
temporary possession in January 2023. A proportion of that land
was purchased in July 2023. Meanwhile, preparation for the
diversion of a high-pressure gas main began in March 2023.
Fencing was erected, hundreds of metres of hedges were ripped out
and a compound was built, before work was halted in May 2023.
Following the announcement of phase 2a’s cancellation, the family
expected the compulsory purchase order to be cancelled and the
land to be returned. However, further land was purchased in
November 2023. Last time I checked, November definitely came
after October, so that was after the Prime Minister announced
that the scheme was not continuing.
What are the impacts on these farmers? They are considerable,
because HS2 has a very different understanding of the concept of
the purchase of land. If any of us in this place, or any of our
constituents, wants to purchase land, usually we enter into an
agreement, then we pay money, and after we have paid the money,
we may get the land. It works very differently for HS2. It can
purchase land and never pay for the land. Those affected then
have the problem of having to work around HS2, which will never
actually build anything on the land.
Here we have a business, a farm, with a 400-cow dairy unit.
Because of all the infrastructure changes that HS2 has made, such
as removing access to parts of the grazing area, it is difficult
for the farmers to move livestock around. It is difficult for
them to gain access to land for which they have never been paid,
or of which HS2 has taken temporary possession. All this is
creating an additional workload, and they have not been
compensated and are not clear about when that will happen.
Another example is a small nursery business whose owners depend
on people knowing where it is. HS2, which has placed a charge on
the land through the Land Registry, will not allow them to cut
the hedges that it now owns but has never paid for, but it is
willing to charge them, at an incredibly high rate, for the
freedom to cut the hedges so that people know where their
business is.
This is not the way in which we expect a Government-owned
company—a company owned not by some multi- national, but by the
Secretary of State for Transport—to be able to proceed. I wonder
whether, if I pass on the contact details of those two businesses
and other detailed information, the Minister will ensure that
their cases are examined closely and that a resolution is
found.
So many messages have been sent to me about the manner in which
HS2 has conducted itself—about the delays that people have had to
suffer, about the uncertainty, and about people having to put
their hands in their own pockets and spend tens of thousands of
pounds on land agents and consultants to try to get some money
back from HS2, but still not receiving anything. So many people
have had land taken from them—land that they no longer own, but
for which they have never received a single penny.
We need to have clarity. We cannot wait months and months more. I
hope that the Minister, who I know is a diligent and caring
Minister, will give that clarity today, or, at the very minimum,
give a clear timeline for when everyone who has been impacted by
HS2 will know the rules by which it is playing, and ensure that
there is fairness for the people in Staffordshire who have been
affected.
4.07pm
(North West Leicestershire)
(Ind)
I commend the hon. Member for Stafford () for securing this debate.
The motion states:
“That this House calls on the Government to provide compensation
to people who have been affected by the construction of HS2.”
I take a bit of exception to the word “construction”. There has
been a great deal of cost and a great deal of injury, especially
for the taxpayer. In my constituency, 22 miles of which have been
affected by blight for more than a decade, there is certainly
plenty of injury and need for compensation, but there has never
been any actual construction.
As the House knows, HS2—the second project of the high-speed rail
system—was initiated by the Labour Government before the 2010
election. I think it was Lord Adonis’s little pet project, which
he formulated on the back of a fag packet as a gimmick for the
Labour manifesto, but unfortunately picked it up and ran with
it.
Did the hon. Gentleman know that before got his grubby hands on it, a
design for HS2 was made by Arup? HS2 would have connected with
HS1, and would have gone into major transport hubs such as
Birmingham New Street and Manchester Piccadilly. It would have
been possible to travel directly from Manchester Piccadilly to
France without any changes at all, and do you know what? It would
have been cheaper as well, because there would have been no
tunnelling through the Chilterns.
If we were to debate the many failings of HS2, we would need more
than the time available today. That will be for another debate,
and I have no doubt that the Government have learned lessons, as
they always do, but they will have been very expensive lessons
for the taxpayer. HS2 is the white elephant that got ever bigger
on taxpayers’ money. I opposed the project before it even
started. I voted and spoke against it at every opportunity for a
decade, but the elephant got ever larger.
My constituents let out a collective sigh of relief when phase 2b
was finally dispatched. Today’s debate is about compensation,
which is defined as an award, normally money, paid in recognition
of loss, suffering and injury. Although my constituency did not
see any HS2 construction, we certainly had plenty of loss,
suffering and injury. We had 10 years of blight, with an area the
width of two football fields, running the whole length of the
constituency—22 miles—being sterilised.
Countless houses were never built and at least one factory, at
the Lounge coal washing site, had to be cancelled—that factory
would have created 1,200 jobs. We have had this blight for 10
years. My constituency is fortunate to have the highest economic
growth in the country, but that economic growth and prosperity
would have been far greater without the blighted land running
through the middle of the constituency for more than 10
years.
What compensation can the Minister offer my constituents? Some of
them went to their grave, and the biggest worry in their life was
that HS2 was supposed to be going through their back garden. I
reassured them that it was never going to happen. Despite all the
bull and bluster from the Government, it was always going to run
out of money. When the route was announced in 2013, I said it was
going to end up costing over £100 billion —it is in Hansard—and
the House laughed. It was right to laugh, because it was not £100
billion, was it? It was £160 billion at its peak.
The hon. Member for Lichfield () is right that the
project was supposed to move people seamlessly around the
country. As the Government could never afford to get HS2 into
city centres because of its burgeoning costs, they quickly ended
up aiming to move people from nearly London to nearly Birmingham.
If phase 2 had proceeded, it would have gone to nearly
Manchester. I do not know anyone who wants to go from nearly
London to nearly Birmingham, but the project had to continue.
HS2 has blighted my North West Leicestershire constituency, but I
want to talk about one community in particular. The village of
Measham was the most affected settlement on the planned route.
Nowhere south of Measham had the number of houses and businesses
that would have been disrupted, without any mitigation. Knowing
it is one of the most deprived communities in my constituency, we
had a regeneration plan to work with a fantastic company called
Measham Land, through which 450 desirable new houses were going
to be built on wasteland in the middle of the village. Working
with the Ashby Canal Trust, it was going to fund regeneration
projects, including two aqueducts, to bring the canal back to
Measham, with a café culture around a large basin at the end of
the canal system where people could bring their longboats. There
was going to be huge investment in the village until HS2 was
announced.
The route went straight through the middle of the Measham Land
site. The regeneration of Measham has been delayed for 10 years.
The people of Measham have suffered loss and injury, but where is
the compensation? Okay, the regeneration will now go ahead, but
it is 10 years late. The project would have been completed by
now. We have seen that all along the route, not just in my
constituency.
Who else has been injured? I will declare an interest: I am
probably the only Member of Parliament who had to sell their
house to HS2—a house that I bought in 2011. It was a substantial
Georgian rectory with outbuildings and 14 acres of grounds, and I
was forced by a judge to sell it under the extreme hardship
scheme. I sold it in 2015 to HS2. Being a Member of Parliament, I
thought, “I can’t deal with HS2 myself, so I’ll employ some
consultants to deal with it, so that it’s an arm’s length
transaction.” They charged me £25,000. It took 18 months, and I
went through the system. I explained to the Government afterwards
how HS2 has swindled everybody along the line with its property
prices, and I will explain to the House how it is done.
It appears to be a transparently fair system, but I can assure
hon. and right hon. Members that it most certainly is not, given
the psychology behind it. Everybody along the whole route is
presented with the same options. If HS2 wants to buy a property
or someone has to sell their property—whether it is land, a
factory or a dwelling—for various reasons, they will be offered a
list of 10 valuers by HS2. The valuers will be mainly London
estate agents, of whom the seller will have no knowledge. They
may know the names—some of the very big estate agencies are on
the list of 10 valuers—but it will be dealt with by the London
offices, with which people in the midlands or the north are
unlikely to have ever had any contact. They will be asked to
choose one of the valuers to value their property, and HS2 will
choose another, which sounds pretty transparently fair. They will
both come to the property, land or factory to do an valuation. If
the valuations are within 10% of each other, HS2 will say, “Let’s
split the difference and call that the valuation.”
On paper, that sounds very fair, but think about the psychology
of it. Those 10 valuers are the valuers for the whole route. They
will only ever work for an individual who chooses them at random,
because no seller has any knowledge of them whatsoever—it is a
purely random choice. By choosing a valuer, someone has done all
they can for them; the valuer will get paid their fee from HS2
for doing the valuation. But what the valuers on the list all
want to be is the valuer that gets chosen every time by HS2.
Given the pressure from the burgeoning costs of the project and
the evidence given by whistleblowers who have left the land
procurement side of HS2, which of the valuers do hon. and right
hon. Members think HS2 will choose on the next occasion: the
valuer who puts in the highest price to buy my house and land
from me, or the valuer who puts in the lowest price for my
property and land? The fact is that the system used by HS2 was
always going to drive down the land and property prices paid to
those affected by the route, and it is provable that that is
exactly what it did.
There have been two notable whistleblowers who have left HS2, and
I have spoken to both of them over the years. A former director
of HS2, Doug Thornton, was put in charge of planning and
performance. He was later put in charge of a £2.8 billion project
to acquire all the land and properties that were needed along
parts of the route. He went back to HS2 and said, “£2.8 billion
is not enough. You can’t make a budget and just say we’re going
to buy all the land and buildings for £2.8 billion.” He said it
was nearer £4.8 billion, but he was told that he had to buy them
for that price. Does that sound like HS2 was ever paying a fair
price for the properties it needed to acquire along the
route?
I have also recently spoken to Andrew Bruce, who was in charge of
buying land and properties for HS2 until 2016. He had told his
superiors that they had never paid a fair market price for any of
the land and buildings that he bought while he was there, and he
was asked to shred a report that he had done on that.
The two whistleblowers suffered loss and injury as well, because
I am told that they were unable to get another job in the
industry after they whistleblew on the practices that they
experienced in HS2. They might need some compensation as well. We
should protect whistleblowers, because without them we would
still have a continuation of the Horizon/Post Office scandal. I
maintain that individuals and communities have been damaged by
HS2, and I would be interested to know what compensation the
village of Measham will get, and what we are going to do for
every householder and landowner along that route, who I can prove
did not get the right price.
The Minister has promised me a meeting twice in the last two
months, and I still do not have a date for it. I really hope that
he will come through for me. I hope that lessons have been
learned by HS2 and the Government. It has been a week of
scandals— Horizon/Post Office, the loan charge, HS2—and the
Government have not covered themselves in glory.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Three Members, plus the Front Benchers, still wish to
speak. The debate has to end at 5 o’clock. I urge brevity upon
colleagues.
4.21pm
(Crewe and Nantwich)
(Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford () on securing this important
debate and advocating for her constituents. As my remarks will
show, I am considering the topic from a slightly different but
equally important angle. I am here to press the Government to
compensate Crewe in the light of the cancellation of HS2 from
Birmingham to Crewe, and then on from Crewe to Manchester. I hope
that the House will indulge me: for medical reasons I was not on
the estate when we returned from recess following the
announcement by the Prime Minister regarding HS2. I made my
opposition to the decision clear at the time, but the decision
has now been made, so I will not spend time rehearsing the
arguments. I recognise that I would be heavily outnumbered today
on that front.
I will, however, place on the record the disappointment of my
constituents and local businesses. The arrival of HS2 to Crewe
represented a fantastic opportunity for the town to secure
economic growth and improve connectivity on both inter-city and
other rail travel. Crewe has a positive future regardless, but
there is no denying the super-charging effect that HS2 coming to
Crewe would have had. I must reluctantly accept the Government’s
decision, and recognise that other proposals can now move forward
as a result. As part of Network North, we will see increased
funding for most existing major road network and large local
major road schemes. Those schemes can benefit from an uplift in
Government contributions from 85% to 100% of their cost, and
increased funding will help to ensure the delivery of the
schemes. It will also lead to over £700 million to fund a new
wave of bus service improvement plans in the north, and an extra
£3.3 billion to tackle potholes as part of a road resurfacing
scheme.
There is no doubt, however, that as things stand Crewe has not
been fairly compensated in the light of the changed plans. Those
in local government in Cheshire, and in Cheshire East in
particular, were encouraged to engage with and prepare for HS2’s
arrival. Had they not, I am sure they would have been subject to
extraordinary pressure from central Government to do just that.
Regeneration funding given to the town and, in particular, our
town deal were calculated with a clear understanding that this
other form of central Government investment was happening.
Cheshire East reports that it spent over £11 million in preparing
for HS2 and the Crewe hub. That includes £8.6 million in the
capital programme and £2.6 million of direct revenue
expenditure.
While it is not for me to decide the wisdom of all that
expenditure line by line, it was a significant amount of money,
predicated on repeated long-term commitments from central
Government. That investment was due to realise regeneration in
Crewe that it will not now achieve. That money could have been
spent directly in Crewe in other ways that did secure
regeneration. Of course we can expect our share of the
reallocated bus and road funding, but that is just the share that
we would have expected to get if HS2 was never coming to Crewe. A
decision has been taken, which the Government argue a wider
region will benefit from, but the Government need to recognise
the financial impact on Crewe and step up to the plate.
I do not accept that Cheshire East can blame the decision for all
its financial woes—that is obvious political manoeuvring—and it
is important that the lion’s share of any funding goes to Crewe
and is not used just to fill the financial problems facing the
wider council, but I do accept that the Government must
compensate us locally for the implications of their decision.
We have a lot of positive things to talk about in Crewe. As I
mentioned, our town deal is funding a £22.9 million package of
projects, including a community centre in the regenerated and
reopened Flag Lane Baths, a brand new home for the south Cheshire
amateur boxing club, a new youth club, improved pocket parks,
investment in empty shops and more. We also have £14 million from
the future high streets fund. However, the economic value, both
direct and associated, with being an HS2 hub station was of
significant scale and the return on bus and road funding will see
a shortfall that I press the Government to look at.
We know a number of sites got significantly bigger town deals and
levelling-up funding has been made available to other places on a
bigger scale. That was not unreasonable in the context of HS2
coming to Crewe, but now it is not. I know the rail Minister is
only one part of the puzzle, but I hope there is recognition
across Government that movement is needed. Will the Minister
confirm the Government’s commitment to coming forward with
proposals to compensate Crewe, over and above the money all areas
are receiving based on the decision taken on HS2 and that we
expect to receive? When will that funding be made available and
how?
When the dust has settled, the Government should be able to
demonstrate clearly that the impact on Crewe has been recognised
not just with words but with a clear investment of funding. That
is the fair thing to do. I know the Minister recognises the
obligation that any reasonable person would see exists and I
expect he has been pressing the case, but time is moving on. What
we need now are results.
4.25pm
(Buckingham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford () on securing this important
debate. It gives me the opportunity —I have done this many times
before in this Chamber and at the Transport Committee—to continue
to detail the plight faced by landowners and small business
owners alike who, through no fault of their own, have been swept
up in the seemingly endless and needless disruption caused by HS2
Ltd and its contractors in my constituency.
People face losses and hefty legal bills that have left many
unprofitable, some facing near bankruptcy and all without the
means to recoup their losses in any equitable way. Time and
again, I have heard about the inescapable, infinite loop of
bureaucracy that surrounds what meagre compensation HS2 Ltd is
willing to cough up, which in itself increases and prolongs my
constituents’ legal costs. One landowner told me that her land
agent is increasingly reluctant to take on more work as more and
more of his bills, which under the Act are meant to be
compensated by HS2’s own agents Carter Jonas, go unpaid.
A couple in my constituency have been caught up in this legal
quagmire, with HS2’s insistence that their septic tank be
replaced before the project purchases the property at a
predetermined rate. What was supposed to be a relatively
straightforward job turned into a multi-month process, preventing
my constituents from selling their property at that agreed price,
effectively leaving them short-changed, despite them simply
following due process. They have yet to be compensated for the
difference between the agreed value and the actual value of their
property.
In the village Quainton, which in one way or another has been
continuously impacted by HS2’s road closures, yet another road
closure is about to come into effect, this time for two years.
That will devastate my constituents at Doddershall House, whose
business will suffer from reduced access to and from the estate,
and require a lengthy diversion both for them and their clients.
HS2 has not even attempted to offer them compensation.
For our farmers, cattle loss has blighted numerous farms as a
result of poor soil treatment and management by HS2’s
contractors, often operating right next door. One farm has quoted
a total loss of £37,000 as a direct result of HS2’s shoddy
practices. How can this possibly be morally justifiable for the
project? How can a hardworking family be left with such heavy
losses?
Then there is blackleg, a disease in cattle that is caused by
bacteria released from disturbed soil. I am aware of at least one
case that the farmer has attributed to HS2’s malpractice. It is
noteworthy that farmers in this area have never seen a blackleg
case before in Buckinghamshire. No prizes, Mr Deputy Speaker, for
guessing how much compensation has been offered—for the avoidance
of all doubt, it is zero.
It is not just farmers and landowners who suffer from being left
out in the cold by HS2. Hundreds of road users across my
constituency are forced to sit in endless congestion wherever HS2
decides to cut down a tree, closing whole roads in the process,
and there are endless utility diversions. Commuters, buses taking
children to school and ambulances responding to life-or-death
situations have all had their journeys repeatedly disrupted by
HS2, with no recourse to any form of compensation.
Whether it is the A41 through Waddesdon and Fleet Marston, or the
villages near Wendover, such as Ellesborough and Butlers Cross,
these endless, endless diversions are costing real people real
money and real time and, in some cases, lives on a daily basis,
and there is no compensation. That is before we even get to the
state of Buckinghamshire’s roads, destroyed by thousands of HGV
movements linked to HS2 construction, causing endless damage to
cars, from tyres to suspension systems. Again, HS2, with its
fingers in its ears, does not take any responsibility for what it
has broken in Buckinghamshire.
Briefly, I come to businesses, with the example of the Prince of
Wales pub in Steeple Claydon, which sits at the heart of HS2
disruption and destruction and is also very near the building of
East West Rail. Roads in and out of the village are constantly
closed—Addison Road, for example, was closed for many, many
months recently. It is costing the pub nigh on £1,000 a month in
lost revenue. At one point, the landlord told me that he was
£65,000 down. There is no scheme—nothing at all—to compensate
businesses affected in this way. Real livelihoods and the real
viability of businesses are being challenged. I put that to a
former chief executive of HS2 Ltd, Mark Thurston, when he
actually bothered to visit my constituency in May, and the
language he used about the pub is unrepeatable in this Chamber.
There was no sympathy; he just said that it was just a—expletive—
“little pub that nobody would want to drink in anyway.” That is
not the attitude that we expect from anyone paid by the
state.
Just next door in Steeple Claydon is Langston & Tasker, which
stands out among the businesses affected by HS2 construction
because, as a bus and coach operator, it is hit hard by any road
closure. It operates school runs, taking Buckinghamshire children
to school daily, yet the constant road closures, the state of the
roads and the damage to their vehicles are costing the company
considerable amounts of money every single day, which ultimately
gets passed on to Buckinghamshire Council and local council tax
payers. Does HS2 pay a penny towards it? No, of course not, but
it absolutely should.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I could go on with examples like this all
afternoon, but I am very aware of the time and the fact that
others wish to speak. My message to the Minister, who I know does
listen, has visited my constituency and does want to get this
right, is that we must do better. HS2 Ltd must do better. The
attitude needs to change. The practices need to change. HS2 needs
to understand the real lives that it is devastating on a daily
basis, be that people who own property or people who are just
trying to go about their daily lives—going to work, getting the
kids to school, and perhaps having some fun. The people from HS2
need to understand the impact that, as unwelcome aliens in
Buckinghamshire, they are having daily as they build this
railway. My challenge to the Minister is this: let us get the
compensation that real people—my constituents and so many
more—deserve.
4.33pm
(Lichfield) (Con)
I thank my near neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Stafford
() for introducing this debate.
We have heard a catalogue of problems from various colleagues
here on both sides of the House. The sad thing is that they are
not unique. They are repeated up and down the country.
When I was a Whip, I instituted a system—I am looking at my hon.
Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (), who is the Whip, to see
whether this system still operates—where we would look at our
Members of Parliament to see how many staff they got through in a
short period, because clearly there was a problem if someone
could not hold on to their staff for long. We would think that
the Minister or Back Bencher in question was seriously flawed in
some way. How many chairmen and chief executives has HS2 gone
through? It has gone through a lot, because they are flawed in a
serious way; they are dysfunctional.
That is made even more amazing by the fact that they have gone
through all these senior staff at HS2, and yet it is the highest
paid role in the civil service.
It is extraordinary, and it just demonstrates what an
organisation this is—not only dysfunctional, but unfair. In an
intervention, I talked about my constituent Siân Froggatt, who is
not being allowed to reclaim land that was compulsorily taken
from her, even though the land is now not needed because the
railway is not going ahead on phase 2a. I might add that she is
still waiting to be paid—waiting to be paid, and still unable
able to reclaim that land.
I took the opportunity of looking at my cellphone during the
debate, not because I was looking at tractors or anything like
that, but because I was doing some research about the Crichel
Down rules. It says on the Government’s own website that
“The Crichel Down Rules require government departments… to offer
back surplus land to the former owner or the former owner’s
successors at the current market value.”
It has to be offered back to the same people. Not only is it not
being offered back at a reasonable price, but it is often not
being offered back to the same people.
I came in at the very last moment to speak in this debate, so I
will not take up a great deal of time. I will listen with
interest to the Minister’s response, which I suspect might be the
same as the answer he gave yesterday in a different debate
regarding the Handsacre junction, which happens to be in my
constituency. I ask that in these dying days of HS2—dying days in
one way or another—the Government get a grip and ensure that,
just we asked in the previous debate, justice is done for our
constituents. The sense of justice we have in this nation extends
not only to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, as in the previous
debate, but to HS2 Limited in this one.
4.37pm
(Wythenshawe and Sale East)
(Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford () on securing this important
debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting
the time. I also thank the right hon. Member for South
Staffordshire (Sir ) and the hon. Members for
Chesham and Amersham (), for North West Leicestershire
(), for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr
Mullan), for Buckingham () and for Lichfield () for contributing to the
debate.
The stories we have heard, and those that have been reported over
the years, show the very real consequences of this Tory HS2
fiasco—[Interruption.] There is some muttering from Conservative
MPs. If the civil service and the Department for Transport were
not involved in the decision to cancel that was announced by the
Prime Minister in Manchester—it was done on the back of a fag
packet, which has been used today, all day—it is no wonder that
we got this type of fiasco.
We have heard of people having to leave the family home that they
worked hard for, businesses having to pack up and leave their
premises, towns and villages seeing homes targeted after they
were bought and later left to rot, and farmers being forced to
move or unable to use their land for years because of more and
more delays to HS2., We have heard of cash-strapped councils such
as Cheshire East Council, which the hon. Member for Crewe and
Nantwich told us paid out £11 million. I commend the Labour
spokesman on his campaign to have
the council reimbursed for the money lost.
Communities have had their future put on pause for years and
families have found getting compensation to be a painful and
drawn-out experience. Lives and businesses have been disrupted
for a decade, and for what? A staggering £65 billion high-speed
train line that will now not even reach the communities that have
been impacted—a train line that, according to the chair of HS2,
will result in fewer seats and longer journeys for those
travelling north of Birmingham. What a result for the people
living in those communities and across the north.
All that is even before we consider how much taxpayers’ money has
been spent on the compensation. According to reports, almost £423
million has been spent buying up 424 properties on the western
leg from Birmingham to Manchester, and £164 million spent buying
530 “blighted” properties on the eastern leg to Leeds. Today
comes the news that the Government are lifting safeguarding on
the land; not content with cancelling high-speed rail to the
north, the Prime Minister has now decided to salt the earth. If
we were not aware already, that must be the final nail in the
coffin for levelling-up.
Sir
Can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether, in the unfortunate and
unlikely event of a Labour Government, they would reimpose
safeguarding on phase 2a?
Like Napoleon out of Moscow, it is routed through the
poisoned-earth strategy with the lifting of the safeguarding
today. We have to be responsible. We will have to see what the
books tell us if we are to enter Government in the weeks or
months to come.
We have seen 14 years of promises to the north and the midlands
broken. In the Prime Minister’s desperate, failing attempt to
rebrand himself as the change candidate at the next election, he
decided to rush through an alternative plan at the party
conference—a plan that mentions places such as Crewe, which, as
the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly said, would have
greatly benefited, but a plan that the Prime Minister admitted
was only “illustrative”. Illustrative? The Network North plan
announced fantastic news for my Wythenshawe and Sale East
constituency—a new Metrolink line to Manchester airport. It
opened in 2016. That illustrates the chaos and the confusion of
that announcement.
The now Foreign Secretary was not alone on the Conservative side
in criticising the decision. Two former Chancellors warned the
Prime Minister that his actions were “huge economic self-harm”,
while the Tory Mayor of the West Midlands described it as
“cancelling the future”—a great line, if I may say so to the hon.
Member for Lichfield. In what is a consistent theme for this
Government, this whole mess has been created by not consulting
the communities affected, not speaking to our Metro Mayors and
not listening to the businesses across the country that were
depending on the project.
After 14 years, communities have had enough of the broken
promises from this broken Government. Labour will not repeat
those mistakes—mismanaging major projects, turning people’s lives
upside down, taking their trust for granted, impacting their
businesses and livelihoods and failing to deliver.
I am listening carefully to the shadow Minister, who is telling
us that a mythical future Labour Government would not disrupt
people’s lives. Does he understand that building HS2 does
devastate people’s lives? Big infrastructure devastates people’s
lives and there is no way to do it without doing that.
That is exactly why Labour would do it with the Mayors, with the
communities and in consultation with those it would affect and
impact. HS2 was going to go under my back garden—that was my
interest.
The hon. Gentleman just said that Labour would do it. Just to be
clear, can I confirm that Labour is now saying it will bring back
HS2 if it wins the next election?
I refer to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for South
Staffordshire; that remains our position. Labour has launched an
independent expert review of transport infrastructure headed by
industry leader Jürgen Maier, originally of Siemens, to learn the
lessons from this shambles and to ensure that we deliver
transport infrastructure faster and more effectively, so that
communities are not taken for a ride with nothing to show for it,
as has been the case here.
In this debate we have heard just a few of the many examples of
people’s lives being impacted by this Conservative HS2 scandal.
It is clear that communities are still paying the price for the
delays of the past decade and the chaos of the past few
months.
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. Would he
generously accept that, if it had not been for changing the original plan, HS2
would have gone nowhere near areas such as the Chilterns? It
would have gone up a completely different route and been a
connected railway, and would probably have been quite
worthwhile.
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but seriously,
after 14 years, those types of excuses are wearing
extraordinarily thin, if he does not mind my saying so.
I hope the Minister will outline what is being done to address
this chaos—costs are still going up after the decision in
October—to ensure that those impacted receive the compensation
that they deserve, as Members have well underlined, and that the
same mistakes are not made again and again in future. I look
forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks. Once again, I thank
the hon. Member for Stafford for securing the debate and all
Members who have participated.
4.45pm
The Minister of State, Department for Transport ()
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford () for securing this important
debate and I acknowledge all contributions from right hon. and
hon. Members. I will come to them in the course of my
response.
As the House will be aware, the Government laid a written
ministerial statement this morning announcing the lifting of
safeguarding directions along the former HS2 route between the
west midlands and Crewe. By lifting safeguarding, the Government
are providing certainty to people along the former route of phase
2a and making development easier, as HS2 Ltd will no longer
object to proposed development in the area to which the
safeguarding direction had applied.
To be clear, however, the lifting of safeguarding does not in any
way trigger the start of a sell-off of property already acquired
by the Secretary of State. No land owned by the Secretary of
State will be sold off until we are ready. Safeguarding applies
to land owned privately. The imposition of safeguarding on phase
2a had hitherto protected HS2 from conflicting development from
any private landowner.
Safeguarding has now been lifted from phase 2a, with one notable
exception: the continued safeguarding of land close to the
village of Handsacre, north of Lichfield in Staffordshire. That
junction, which I know is dear to my hon. Friend the Member for
Stafford, and indeed to the constituency MP, my hon. Friend the
Member for Lichfield (), is now an even more
critical part of the HS2 infrastructure. It will allow HS2 trains
to join the west coast main line through a connection to the
existing rail network. I can confirm that the Government remain
committed to delivering the Handsacre connection, as we are
committed to delivering HS2 phase 1.
From London to the midlands, 140 miles of new railway is being
built by thousands of engineers and construction workers at 350
active construction sites. At Euston, we are working with our
development partner, Lendlease, to model an ambitious redeveloped
Euston quarter and deliver thousands of homes and offices that
will provide the financing for HS2 trains into central London.
Today’s important announcement is further evidence that we are
listening to businesses and residents along the former phase 2a
route, and we will continue to do so.
Let me give the further information that my right hon. Friend the
Member for South Staffordshire (Sir ) and my hon. Friend the
Member for Lichfield requested. We will amend the safeguarding on
the remainder of the phase 2 route of HS2—from Crewe to
Manchester and from the west midlands to Leeds—by the summer, to
allow for any safeguarding needed for Northern Powerhouse Rail.
To respond to the point made by my right hon. Friend, we will
shortly design a programme for the disposing of any property that
is no longer needed by HS2, and will set out more details
soon.
I can confirm that any land and property that was acquired for
HS2 compulsorily or via statutory blight but is no longer
required will be sold, subject to the Crichel Down rules. Those
rules, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield set out,
require Government Departments, under certain circumstances, to
offer back surplus land and property for sale to the former
owner, or their successors, at the current market value. I
therefore assure my hon. Friend that we are ensuring that
property is offered back at a fair price to original owners with
first refusal.
The Minister says that the properties acquired by HS2 that are no
longer required will be sold at the current market price, but
does he accept that, as I have explained to the House, HS2 did
not pay a fair market price at the time of the acquisition of
those assets?
I am due to meet the hon. Member. He said that I had declined to
meet him after two requests; actually, I had a meeting in his
diary yesterday, but according to his office he was unable to
make that meeting. We have set another date for 31 January. I
will talk to the hon. Member about the matters he raises; the
Department and the HS2 team have looked at them before and do not
agree with the conclusions he has mentioned, but we will discuss
those matters when we meet on the 31st.
As has been set out by my hon. Friends and other Members who have
spoken, property owners who have found themselves obliged to deal
with HS2 Ltd and its contractors have had varied and, at times,
inconsistent experiences. Those property owners are
understandably less interested in what HS2 can or cannot deliver
for transport and the wider economy: their focus has instead been
on seeking the compensation they are entitled to, and navigating
what must at times have seemed like an unequal relationship with
HS2 Ltd.
I readily acknowledge how important it is that those owed
compensation, such as money for the purchase of their property or
expenses or costs associated with such transactions, are paid in
as timely a manner as is possible. I have always sought to
impress on the company and its agents that it is unacceptable
that cases should drag on. That is of no benefit to
anyone—certainly not the property owner, and certainly not the
taxpayer.
When it comes to paying owners for title to properties that they
have, in many cases, sold unwillingly, it is only right that
those owners should receive recompense in full and as fast as is
practicable. That said, each property transaction is unique, so
presents its own set of circumstances. As many in this House will
be aware, when negotiating and settling compensation claims, HS2
Ltd follows the principles set out in the compensation code.
There are also a number of discretionary schemes that offer
further help to those not eligible under the statutory
framework—in effect, they go above and beyond that framework.
HS2 Ltd must achieve a careful balance between meeting the needs
of the claimant and delivering value for money to the taxpayer.
The compensation code requires claimants to provide robust
evidence for their claims. It is often when claimants are
struggling to provide sufficient suitable evidence for their
claims that negotiations become frustrated, leading to delays. I
will be frank: the extent to which claimants’ agents provide
suitable evidence, or are willing to negotiate from a realistic
standpoint, varies considerably—I have found myself in the middle
of some discussions of that type in constituents’ homes. It is
important to understand that background, as it helps to explain
why, in some instances, property owners consider that they are
having payments withheld. When late payments do occur, they are
never acceptable, but our data shows that they are the exception
rather than the rule.
Property cases should be concluded as soon as is practicable,
within the constraints imposed by the balance of the property
owner’s interests and those of the taxpayer. The evidence shows—I
will happily write to every right hon. and hon. Member who has
taken part in this debate—that HS2 Ltd is succeeding in closing
down claims, despite the considerable complexities that those
claims involve. However, I acknowledge that there are a number of
impacted parties with whom HS2 Ltd has not yet been able to reach
agreement and negotiations have become challenging, and we have
heard about many of them this afternoon. As I mentioned, I have
got myself involved in many of those cases to move them further
along and challenge HS2 as to the position taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is a tireless advocate for
the cases that have arisen in her constituency, some of which she
and I have previously discussed, as she mentioned. She has cited
some particular cases during the debate; I will write back to her
with my latest understanding of where matters sit regarding her
constituents Mr and Mrs Tabernor and Mr Collier. The same applies
to other constituent cases named in this debate by my right hon.
Friend the Member for South Staffordshire and others.
With regard to the point about intimidation—I say this as someone
who chaired the Transport Select Committee—I believe that
everyone should be able to give clear, frank, open and
transparent evidence without fear or favour. If there is any
evidence of intimidation, I will of course look at it and make
sure that it is eradicated. I give everyone in the House that
assurance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham () has demanded, I am determined
that HS2 Ltd should continue to up its game in dealing with
difficult and disputed cases, such as the ones that have been
mentioned today and others that I am aware of.
Let me touch on a few matters raised by other hon. Members we
have heard from but I have not mentioned. The hon. Member for
Chesham and Amersham () referenced a number of cases.
I am very happy to meet her, as I have previously. She is a
tireless advocate on her constituents’ behalf and I will meet her
again to discuss some of those cases. I have touched on the
points made by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire
() and look forward to meeting
him and going through the points he made in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) has
been a tireless advocate of the benefits that HS2 could deliver
to his constituency, and it is the one part of the country that I
believe needs particular mention. I spent a morning with him and
local Cheshire East councillors looking at the potential and at
what the team had brought. It will not have escaped his attention
that the local government Minister—the Under-Secretary of State
for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the
Member for North Dorset ()—has entered the Chamber. The
two of us spoke earlier this week about the needs of Crewe, and
we also spoke to other colleagues. He has been a tireless
champion of the council, with the predicament that it finds
itself in, and when I and the local government Minister meet the
team from Cheshire East, my hon. Friend is certainly welcome to
join us. We have made such points to other colleagues, and we are
determined to help and to work together. I know that the local
government Minister cares about these matters and will work with
us to do so.
I say gently to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East
()—he is a fellow football player
with me, as well as a good friend—that the Labour position
appears to keep changing. Just last week, the Leader of the
Opposition went to Manchester to say that HS2 would no longer
continue, which was slightly inconsistent with what we heard this
afternoon. It may well be the case that many dispute the plan we
have in place, but the plan is not to go ahead with HS2 north of
Handsacre, and instead to spend that money—the £36 billion—on
projects across the country, particularly to benefit all cities
across the north and the midlands. That is the plan, but I think
we would all like to know what Labour’s plan is. Is it going to
deliver HS2? If it is not going to deliver HS2 beyond the
midlands, is it going to commit to the £36 billion that this
Government are committing to levelling up? I think we would all
like that clarity, not least the constituents represented by all
those sitting behind me.
Will the Minister give way?
I cannot because of the time—by the look on your face, Mr Deputy
Speaker.
Let me end with three final points. First, I thank my hon. Friend
the Member for Stafford and all the other Members present for
tirelessly working on behalf of those affected by HS2 and for the
manner in which they have engaged with me. I am at their service.
Secondly, I welcome and accept my hon. Friend’s kind invitation
to visit Stafford. I will do so, and before the spring is out.
Thirdly, and in conclusion, I commit to do the best that I can
for property owners impacted by HS2, which includes ensuring the
timely payment of compensation, the urgency of which has been
laid bare in this debate.
4.57pm
First, I thank the Minister for listening to the extraordinary
examples we have heard this afternoon of how HS2 has behaved to
our constituents.
I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield
(), the hon. Member for
Chesham and Amersham (), my right hon. Friend the
Member for South Staffordshire (Sir ), the hon. Member for
North West Leicestershire (), and my hon. Friends the
Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) and for Buckingham
() for speaking in this
debate.
I welcome what the Minister has said, that he will visit my
constituency to meet affected residents, and in particular that
he will write to all of us who have spoken in the debate to
provide clear answers on the individual cases we have raised. It
is very clear from this debate that there is still considerable
uncertainty over HS2, and I welcome the fact that the Government
are going to look again at resolving all outstanding compensation
claims.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government to provide compensation
to people who have been affected by the construction of HS2.
|
