The last thing I would want to argue against is a fairness regime for dealing with compensation. I can only base my impressions of this on the time I spent as a member of the Select Committee. From the moment we were appointed to when, because of the obvious delays caused by the disruption of the pandemic, we actually got down to work, the number of petitions that had been raised by dissatisfied persons or groups had diminished because there had been a settlement. During the course of our proceedings, by the time some of those who had an outstanding petition were due to appear they did not do so because their claim had been settled. So at that stage we heard only what proved to be the difficult cases, and one has to assume that many other people, whether they did so with regret or willingly, had withdrawn their petitions because they had reached a satisfactory conclusion. Of course, while one thinks in a most concerned way about the individual or small community, or the person with a small business who would seem to be in a very difficult situation, generally speaking, most of the claimants were people who had themselves been able to take professional advice. They were not exactly innocents battling against hard-headed professionals in the shape of HS2.
Other members of the Select Committee will speak now or on a future occasion before the legislation has passed through your Lordships’ House, but I do not think that we had the impression that there were so many difficult cases where the levels of compensation were not adequate. Clearly there are the statutory schemes, along with many others that statute has added over the years, to which different categories of claimant could turn. Again, we felt that, through further negotiation, an accommodation could be achieved between the understandably very different points of view—the promoter on the one side and the person facing a diminution of their enjoyment of the place where they live or work on the other.
It is obviously difficult to create a scheme that covers every nook and cranny. We saw a wide range of cases in the petitions that reached us. Some were down to individuals with, in some respects, a heartbreaking tale to tell, but it was hard to see how legislation could have been crafted in a way that would have eliminated that sense of grievance without setting compensation rates at a very high level. It is the case that HS2 has been accused of splashing the cash irresponsibly in many other ways, but still, given the levels of reserves accorded to it, it has to be careful about the level of compensation that it pays. It has that responsibility.
The safeguard in many cases has been the fact that one can petition Parliament. If you are not satisfied with what you get appearing before the House of Commons, you have another chance, for the most part, with the House of Lords. I like to think that all those with grievances who brought petitions were helped by the deliberations of the committee and the lubrication that we may have added to the process of further discussion between the two sides in order to come out with a satisfactory solution.
Simply on the evidence that we have, those who had complaints felt that quite considerable progress was achieved between the two sides. I cannot be satisfied that a whole new range of conditions has to be created, as covered by some of these amendments. Yes, we have to ensure that the basic principles on which compensation operates are fair, but I certainly do not have the impression that they are grossly unfair in a large number of cases. I dare say that further discussions will take place on whether there can be a responsible tightening-up to ensure that we are not leaving out protection for people who really are hit badly by the construction of the railway and are not getting a fair outcome. I am sympathetic to the purposes of the amendments, but I wonder whether they are a sledgehammer to crack what might not be a very large nut.