HS2
“Parliamentary committee members and the senior barristers appointed to respond to petitions in committee sessions will hear of little else for up to two years.”
Securing a seat at the negotiating table
David Haines and Malcolm Dowden, who both acted as ‘Roll B’ Parliamentary Agents in relation to the Crossrail Bill, explain the upcoming petitioning process for the HS2 Hybrid Bill.
It
is not always the best, the most appropriate or the most benefi cial rail project that is built. Often, a project will be built primarily because it is the ‘only game in town’. That was a key message of a presentation on HS2 at the House of Commons as long ago as 2010. The extent of the preparatory work required for a major infrastructure project – including the intensive lobbying required to line up suffi cient political support, as well as route planning and the environmental impact assessment – means that there is very little likelihood that governments will be offered a choice of mature and viable schemes. Consequently, the real-world decision tends to be one between reaching for the available project – or being accused of allowing the nation’s infrastructure to fail.
In practice, arguments concerning the relative merits and potential economic benefi ts of HS2 as against urban metro or mass transit schemes have been largely academic. Political impetus has gathered behind HS2. The scheme requires Parliamentary authorisation by means of a ‘Hybrid Bill’. At the time of writing, that Bill is scheduled to get its second reading on 29 April (see page 6 for the result). Once past its second reading, the ‘principle’ of a Bill is approved, meaning no fundamental opposition to the scheme or major alterations to the route will be considered. The Bill moves to a committee whose remit is to consider petitions seeking specifi c protections for landowners or other interests affected by the scheme. The committee is concerned with detail, not big-picture issues.
Taking Crossrail as the most recent example, the committee stage can take up to two years, depending on the number of petitions received and the extent to which those petitions
can be settled through negotiation. Behind the parliamentary scenes, there will be an intensive effort to agree the assurances and undertakings required to persuade petitioners to withdraw before their concerns have to go before the committee.
Petitioning is a key element of the Hybrid Bill procedure. Immediately after the Bill’s second reading there will be two ‘windows’ within which those affected by the scheme must submit their petitions. The fi rst period, applicable to local authorities (not including parish councils) and businesses runs from 29 April to 16 May. Individuals have until 23 May to submit petitions.
Petitions may be submitted in person or through a solicitor who is registered as a ‘Roll B’ Parliamentary Agent. Given that the petitions must meet formal requirements, and form the basis both for negotiation with HS2 and for a hearing in front of the committee if they are not withdrawn, there is a strong case for instructing a solicitor with relevant experience. Negotiations with HS2 are intended to lead to legally enforceable agreements or assurances and undertakings, and as several businesses affected by Crossrail have found to their cost, loose wording on issues such as ‘rights of way’ or ‘protection from disruption’ during the construction phase can lead to business- threatening problems.
Early estimates based on the length of HS2’s route, as compared with Crossrail, suggest that the committee can expect as many as 5,000 petitions to be submitted by the May deadlines. Some will relate to the need to record and protect ‘accommodation’ or ‘occupation’ rights for land and roads crossed by the new line.
Others will seek enhanced protection, for example allowing longer notice periods for the relocation of telecommunications equipment than the Bill provides as standard.
Others are likely to ignore (or to be unaware of) the rule that petitions cannot challenge the principle of the Bill and call for the scheme to be scrapped or radically altered.
Consequently, petitions will have to be assessed, categorised and grouped for negotiation. The process is time-consuming and complex. Parliamentary committee members and the senior barristers appointed to respond to petitions in committee sessions will hear of little else for up to two years.
The question after second reading is not whether HS2 is the best scheme, or even whether it is a good scheme. The procedure is concerned only with authorisation of the scheme as it stands, complete with its limits of deviation and limited protections for those affected by its construction and operation – and petitioning is the only way to secure a seat at the negotiating table.
David Haines is a partner at Charles Russell LLP and Malcolm Dowden is a consultant for the fi rm. Both acted as ‘Roll B’ Parliamentary Agents in relation to the Crossrail Bill.
David Haines
Malcolm Dowden rail technology magazine Apr/May 14 | 61
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208