Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Oral evidence: Follow-up to Public Health Service Ombudsman’s report on High Speed 2, HC 793

Tuesday 23 February 2016

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 23 February 2016

Watch the meeting

Members present: Mr Bernard Jenkin (Chair), Ronnie Cowan, Paul Flynn, Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Kate Hoey, Mr David Jones, Tom Tugendhat, Mr Andrew Turner.

Dame Julie Mellor, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, was in attendance.

Questions 1 - 163

Examination of Witness

Witness: Deborah Fazan, HS2 Residents’ Commissioner, gave evidence.

Q1   Chair: I welcome our first witness in this review of PHSO’s report on HS2 and complaints made about HS2’s consultation process. Can I ask our witness to identify herself for the record, please?

Deborah Fazan: Deborah Fazan, Residents’ Commissioner.

Chair: I am sorry you are terribly far away in this very, very grand room, which might feel more intimidating than is intended to be. If you could speak up it would help us greatly. Thank you very much for being with us. We have a great many questions to get through, so if you could keep your answers very short that would be very helpful to us. If we are rambling on, or you are rambling on, I will have words with whoever it is rambling on so that we get through our questions. Can I start with Cheryl Gillan, please?

Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Yes, and may I declare an interest before the Committee that HS2 bisects my constituency and, as the Residents’ Commissioner knows, I have been dealing with the issues surrounding that and the damage to my constituency for the past six years? I think it is only fair that everybody should be aware of that. Welcome.

Chair: Before you start, Ms Fazan, regarding your status: are you speaking for HS2 the company?

Deborah Fazan: No.

Q2   Chair: No. So in terms of who we are holding accountable from HS2 for the implementation of these recommendations, are you responsible for that?

Deborah Fazan: No.

Q3   Chair: No. But you work for HS2?

Deborah Fazan: No, I am an independent person.

              Chair: Right.

Q4   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Who pays you?

Deborah Fazan: HS2 pay me but I am there to hold HS2 to be accountable.

Q5   Chair: Who appointed you?

Deborah Fazan: HS2.

Q6   Chair: Yes. You were appointed by them to be independent but, nevertheless, you are accountable to HS2?

Deborah Fazan: I report to the HS2 board, so I suppose technically, yes, I am accountable to HS2.

Q7   Chair: You report to the non-executives rather than to the executives?

Deborah Fazan: Yes.

Chair: Right. That is quite interesting and important. We will come back to that.

Q8   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Can I continue in that vein? You were recruited by HS2? You are paid by HS2?

Deborah Fazan: Yes.

Q9   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: You work in HS2 offices?

Deborah Fazan: Among other areas, yes.

Q10   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Are you full-time or part-time?

Deborah Fazan: Part-time.

Q11   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: How many days do you work a week?

Deborah Fazan: On average, two days a week.

Kate Hoey: Sorry, did you say “two”?

Deborah Fazan: I did, yes.

              Kate Hoey: Sorry, you are going to have to speak up.

Deborah Fazan: Sorry, apologies.

Q12   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: You are terribly far away. It is very hard to have a rapport in a room like this. Just to set the scene and to explain, would you tell us briefly what your role as Residents’ Commissioner involves?

Deborah Fazan: I was brought on board to hold HS2 accountable for the ways in which they deal with the residents, particularly for the property schemes. The Residents’ Charter was introduced last January and my role came on board at the same time, and that sets out what my remit is, which is to see how they communicate with residents to make sure that they are open and accountable to the residents; to produce a quarterly report; and to monitor and oversee their communication standards. I hold meetings with the chairman on a regular basis to discuss trends and issues, but what that basically means is that I am there in a lot of ways just to listen to people. People will write to me about concerns, and what I am trying to do is see if there are any themes that are coming through that might involve a number of residents so that I can talk to HS2 about those. It is also to look at how the schemes are: for example, one of the themes that came through was that a number of people who had applied to the schemes were not happy with how the valuation process was working. I know that is something that you were particularly concerned about, Mrs Gillan. So that is an area I have been talking to HS2 and the DfT about to see whether or not it can be amended, and I am pleased that it is being looked at.

Q13   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Can I ask you a brief series of questions?

Deborah Fazan: Yes.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan: What have you focused on during your time in this role? You have just emphasised residents. Would you see MPs as being people that you need to communicate with as well? What powers do you need to carry out that role effectively and do you have those powers, and how many reports have you produced so far and what has HS2’s reaction been to those reports?

Deborah Fazan: Goodness. I will do those as well as I can. Can I go from the back? I have produced three reports so far. They have been drawn from a number of encounters. MPs of course are very important because you are the people who talk to your constituents. You have a different engagement with them to that which HS2 has and to that which I have, so it is very important to talk to you as well. It is important to meet the residents, so I have attended a number of community engagement events where I can talk to the residents first-hand about what is going on. I have been out to one of the MP’s constituencies: I was kindly invited to Woodlesford to meet the residents directly there. It is talking to a number of people to find out what their issues are.

In terms of the number of reports, I have produced three so far. The first report went wider than my original remit, but with the chairman’s agreement, to look more generally at communication that HS2 were undertaking.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan: The chairman of HS2’s agreement?

Deborah Fazan: Yes, the chairman of HS2’s agreement, because I had my meetings with him.

Q14   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: You had to get his agreement for your report to go wider than your remit?

Deborah Fazan: Not his agreement for the report to go wider, but my original scope was to look at the property schemes, and in my view overall communication with the residents is wider than just the property schemes. That is why I started to look wider. So I was pushing beyond what my original remit was.

Q15   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Your original remit was just to look at the property schemes?

Deborah Fazan: As set out in the Residents’ Charter, yes.

Q16   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Not to look at general communications and to hold HS2 Ltd to account?

Deborah Fazan: If you go back to the very first charter indications, which were produced in April 2014, the role did go wider, but when it came out and when the Residents’ Charter was originally produced in January 2015, it was more narrowly confined to the property schemes, so I looked back to the original charter. I think that you cannot look at property schemes in isolation because I think that overall communication is what is important.

Q17   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Where have your successes been? What have you discovered in the course of your part-time job?

Deborah Fazan: The engagement when I first came on board was largely focused towards the petition side. Obviously to get the Bill through takes a lot of resource but in my view some of the general engagement with people who were not petitioning was not as active as it could have been. The community forums were no longer operating—I think they ceased in 2013—and it struck me that those people who were not petitioning did not have much engagement going on with them. There were specific events particularly around additional provisions and the community events were planned for the autumn, but as far as more general engagement was concerned, I did not feel that there was a lot there. In my first report one of the things I recommended was to put more people into the community, and I am very pleased that HS2 are now recruiting another 11 people who will be—I think the phrase is—‘go to’ people.

Q18   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Who do you consider to be responsible for good communications as far as this project is concerned?

Deborah Fazan: I am not wholly sure I understand that. The company HS2 is responsible for the communications.

Q19   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Who sets that communications policy?

Deborah Fazan: The HS2 board, I take it.

Q20   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Does the HS2 board consult you before it sets its communications policies?

Deborah Fazan: Not in full levels of detail, although I will have discussions with them.

Q21   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: We have had a body of evidence that has come into this Committee since the Ombudsman’s report, and one of the obvious features of this is the lack of trust between people affected by the scheme in those areas, including Members of Parliament and Ministers, and the way in which HS2 has operated and communicated with people. Do you think that that is something that you would agree with?

Deborah Fazan: Historically I think that may have been the case, but I think that HS2 is aware of the issues and I think it is trying to do things to address them. If you were to ask me: has it done enough? Probably not. Is it doing it fast enough? Probably not. But they know what needs to be done and they know how they want to take it forward.

Q22   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Do you think that your role is sufficient to hold HS2 to account?

Deborah Fazan: I believe so. I have access to the chairman, I met with the Minister. I can talk to any of the non-exec directors, so I can raise it at the highest level within the board to ensure that the HS2 board know how HS2 are adhering to their commitments within the charter.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Can I just very briefly—

Chair: Just very briefly and I will come to you in a minute, Tom.

Q23   Tom Tugendhat: Do they respond to you?

              Chair: Can Cheryl finish first and then I will come to you?

              Mrs Cheryl Gillan: No, go on with yours.

Tom Tugendhat: I was just going to say you say you can raise them but they do not seem to respond to you terribly effectively.

Deborah Fazan: I think that is a point you will need to speak to HS2 about. They certainly do take things on board.

Q24   Chair: How well do you feel they respond to you?

Deborah Fazan: I think that there is a recognition that the things that I am asking to be done are reasonable and need to be done. I do not always think that they are done in as timely a manner as they could be done.

Q25   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: When after your appointment did you first meet any Member of Parliament?

Deborah Fazan: July.

Q26   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: When were you appointed?

Deborah Fazan: January.

Q27   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: In January. Why did it take you so long to meet with any Members of Parliament?

Deborah Fazan: I really felt that I needed to gain some understanding of the schemes before I started meeting Members of Parliament. I wanted to understand from HS2 how they saw the schemes working. I also wanted to understand more. Part of my time I spend with the land and property team and part of the time I spend with the communications team, which also gives me access to the help desk. What I wanted to do was to understand some of the issues that were coming through, and given the fact that I am only part-time, it is a case of trying to get through as much as I possibly can in the time that I am there.

Q28   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: You had previous experience of HS2 before you were appointed as Residents’ Commissioner?

Deborah Fazan: I sat as a panel member on the Exceptional Hardship panel, but that is one scheme out of four and I needed to understand the other schemes.

Q29   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: One of the issues is that there is no independent adjudicator for your role or, indeed, to oversee complaints about HS2. Do you feel that you are sufficiently independent of HS2, bearing in mind you have told us that you worked on the Exceptional Hardship scheme before, that you are paid by HS2, that you report to the HS2 board and that you sit in HS2 offices? Do you think that the perception of you as being independent is compromised by that?

Deborah Fazan: I would ask you to judge me on my reports. Certainly the last report that came out is far more critical than the others have been. I do not think it necessarily makes comfortable reading for HS2. They have undertaken to do a number of things, including put these new 11 people in post and undertake wider awareness of the property schemes, and if those things have not happened by the time my next report comes out, then it will be even more critical and—

Mrs Cheryl Gillan: And they—

Deborah Fazan: If I might just finish. They have never sought to water down the reports in any way, shape or form, ask me to change anything. It is my report and it is what I say and it goes out publicly. If that is not deemed to be independent, I am not wholly sure how else I can demonstrate my independence.

Q30   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: What sanction do you have?

Deborah Fazan: I do not have a sanction. I speak to the board. I let the board know what the situation is and it is for the board to hold the executive and the company to account.

Q31   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: You have no way of enforcing what you discover and what you recommend?

Deborah Fazan: Other than through publicly available reports that give an oversight into how HS2 are communicating with the residents, so I would have said that public—

Q32   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: You are satisfied that that is a satisfactory arrangement and that people outside would see that as being satisfactory?

Deborah Fazan: I am comfortable with it, yes.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan: You are comfortable with it. Thank you.

Q33   Chair: How independent do you feel?

Deborah Fazan: Entirely independent. I am able to talk to anybody I want to, obviously including Members of Parliament, including residents, including any member of HS2 or the DfT, so I don’t feel that I am compromised in any way. As I say, HS2 don’t try to influence what I say at all.

Q34   Chair: Now you have met MPs, how much have you learned from MPs?

Deborah Fazan: A considerable amount. It has been very interesting. I was able to attend the blight and mitigation forum with Mrs Gillan in December. It was very helpful to meet a wide range of MPs and researchers to talk about some of the issues that they are facing with their constituents and try again to see where the themes are.

Q35   Chair: How helpful do you think it might have been if you had met the MPs earlier because you might have learned more, more quickly?

Deborah Fazan: I think it was probably more important, with all due respect, to meet the residents. I started meetings with them in June at some public engagement events, so they are the people at the end of the day that are affected. I have an e-mail address that people can write to. I have a telephone number that people can phone. There are ways of communicating with me. I think MPs are one element of it but I think there are wider areas as well.

Q36   Chair: Are you able to communicate with residents independently of HS2 or do you depend upon HS2 to advertise your assistance?

Deborah Fazan: I am advertised on the HS2 website. I do not have my own separate website, if that is what you mean.

Q37   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: But it is correct that it was after our meeting, when we met, that I pointed out that it was very hard to find your contact details—

Deborah Fazan: You did, and that was very helpful.

              Mrs Cheryl Gillan: —and you addressed that issue, but up until then it was very hard for residents or even MPs to find the contact details.

Deborah Fazan: My contact details were put out on all the phase 2 literature that went out at the end of last year and, you are quite right, my postbag has increased quite exponentially since then.

Chair: Moving on to administration of compensation schemes—[Interruption.] Have I missed something out?

Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Kate is doing customer focus.

              Chair: Kate Hoey, sorry.

Q38   Kate Hoey: You said you work two days. What do you do the other three days?

Deborah Fazan: I have other clients.

Q39   Kate Hoey: Right. Are you allowed to tell us how much you earn for your two days or is that not in the public information?

Deborah Fazan: It is in the public domain. I earn £590 a day.

Q40   Kate Hoey: Thank you. What have you achieved for residents, if you had to summarise it?

Deborah Fazan: The advertisement of another 11 people coming on board; a much better understanding by HS2 of the people they are affecting through demographic research that has been undertaken; more communication events, which are taking place—there is one at Aylesbury today that I would have been at if I had not been here—and more general engagement and, I think, the recognition that wider, more general engagement is needed and will be forthcoming. I think HS2 have set out in their response to my third report what they are proposing to do generally.

Q41   Kate Hoey: You are quite confident that you are fulfilling all the commitments that were made in the Residents’ Charter?

Deborah Fazan: I am. If you look at the Residents’ Charter, it is for HS2 to promise to communicate in plain and non-technical language, to respond to the enquiries and to promote awareness of discretionary property schemes and bring in named case officers. Where I do not think they have done as well as they could have done is to promote awareness of the discretionary property schemes, and I have had a conversation with them about that. I am told that there will be a rollout of more information coming this spring and hopefully again in the autumn, and I intend to hold them to account for that because I think that that should have been more widely advertised and is something that has been discussed at length.

Q42   Kate Hoey: Do you treat people other than residents in the same way? Are the same principles applied to non-residents who have an interest in the scheme?

Deborah Fazan: Absolutely. Residents are obviously more directly affected, but people can be affected in a huge number of ways. It may not always mean that they can qualify for the schemes, because the schemes themselves have their own specific criteria that have to be met. They might not all have geographic boundaries, as the Need to Sell scheme doesn’t, but they all have criteria. Because a resident is not a specific applicant to a scheme does not mean I would not be interested in them.

Q43   Kate Hoey: Do you believe that HS2 has done everything it can to prevent or alleviate the distress, the misery, the uncertainty that residents obviously have had to go through?

Deborah Fazan: I think that where things were when this particular Ombudsman’s report came out is a different place to where HS2 are now, and I think they recognise that. Where I completely agreed with the Ombudsman is that HS2 should have been clearer about what areas the residents could influence. As an example, I am working now with the chair of the Design panel to ensure that when community engagement can take place, particularly on specific design issues, that is going to be productive for both sides, so I think it is about being clear what can be achieved, being clear where people can influence things and being clear on the timescales. Those are three points very much that the Ombudsman picked up that I think are something that HS2 are aware of and are working to ensure.

Q44   Kate Hoey: So you think that they are operating more effectively now?

Deborah Fazan: Than they were? I was not there in 2013 in the role I am in now, so I cannot be absolutely categorical. All I can say to you is, in the last year, I am certainly aware that they are much more aware of the need to be more open and communicate more fairly with residents and be very clear about what can and cannot be achieved. But it is a balance. The difficulty is—and this is particularly on the phase 2 line of route—people want to know how they are going to be affected but until the line of route is announced, it is very difficult to give them a specific answer. I do not necessarily think that drip feeding information is the right way to go either, because you need to know what the answer is going to be before you can be clear, otherwise you can create a different level of uncertainty and that does not help either.

Q45   Kate Hoey: You said that you reported to the executive of HS2, sort of management structure—

Deborah Fazan: No, I report to the board.

Kate Hoey: The full board?

Deborah Fazan: There is a separate executive. I report to the board.

Q46   Kate Hoey: Do you get the feeling when you are reporting to the board that they genuinely care about the residents or is their priority getting the line built?

Deborah Fazan: No, I think the board genuinely care about the residents. They are certainly aware that this project is going to cause immense disruption for a huge number of people and they want to make sure that that is handled in the best way possible.

Q47   Kate Hoey: You do not feel in any way that they have to have somebody so they can say, “We are dealing with the residents”—that you are a bit of a sop, really, to this general idea that big bodies have to consult, but really they do not listen?

Deborah Fazan: No, I don’t think that at all. I am not aware of this particular role having been in place for any other major infrastructure project. I worked for a considerable number of years with the airports and they did not have this level of role, so I think that this is a step forward and a recognition of how important the residents are, particularly within this project, so no, I do not feel like a sop at all.

Q48   Kate Hoey: Should it be full-time job? Would you want it if it was a full-time job?

Deborah Fazan: Personally, possibly not but that is for other personal reasons, nothing connected with the project. I feel very effective on the days that I have. I do not limit myself to only the days that I am in the office. I am on e-mail constantly every single day of the week and I am always available to anybody who needs to talk to me, so it is not limited in those terms. That would not be sensible, to be honest. I have an assistant who works with me who monitors things like the e-mail, so that people are responded to quickly. So I have backup in place for the days that I am not in the office. As I say, I am perfectly flexible about which days I work. It is not limited such that it is defined. It is just that on average it is two days a week.

Q49   Ronnie Cowan: Really the crux of this is I am surprised it is a two-day-a-week job. Given the size of the project, the magnitude, the number of people, the number of communities that are affected by this, I am surprised that you have been given a two-day position to handle all this—the constant barrage from communities and people who are less than happy with what is happening in the communities.

Deborah Fazan: It is interesting because I don’t have a barrage. Most people write to me because they have specific issues and concerns, and that is where I try to take things forward with the company. My postbag varies. Some of it is straightforward: “I live in Manchester. Please can you tell me how I am going to be affected by the railway line?” Some of it is more specific: “I am having trouble with the mortgage valuer getting a remortgage on my property.” I try to look at those trends and issues but I can assure you I do not have a barrage of people saying they are unhappy with communication. I obviously haven’t seen the correspondence that has come to this Committee.

Q50   Ronnie Cowan: It is a constant theme: an arrogant lack of will by HS2 to engage; a blank refusal to engage in the merits or demerits; the engagement process is inadequate; a deliberate policy to go through the minimum statutory requirements. There are pages and pages of these. It is that constant theme. It is not just, “I have an issue. Here is my issue.” It is that feeling there is no genuine engagement.

Deborah Fazan: As I say, I haven’t seen those details and that is not the postbag that I am getting, people saying, “I am not getting sufficient engagement.” What I can say is I know from the engagement events that took place before Christmas, and the ones that are ongoing now, that I believe there is a thirst for people to have more engagement. As an example, I am suggesting they have a mobile unit in the way that Crossrail did early on in their engagement, which can just go out to shopping centres but is much more a visible presence, that can be there so that if people want information they know where to go to. I do think one of the things that perhaps HS2 have not enough of, during 2014 and 2015, is just going out to do those general events where people can go to talk to experts that are there.

Q51   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Can I say, I went to a community event in my own constituency—

Deborah Fazan: Chalfont St Giles?

Mrs Cheryl Gillan: —Chalfont St Peter.

Deborah Fazan: Oh, St Peter, I beg your pardon.

              Mrs Cheryl Gillan: My residents were asking for a community engagement project in Amersham and they were told by an HS2 official that they did not have time to do that. So they brought it to me and a senior HS2 official and I have asked. I presume that you would back up a request for that—

Deborah Fazan: Of course.

              Mrs Cheryl Gillan: —because to be told by somebody that was manning one of those community engagement events that there wasn’t time to do that for a section of the residents is not a good message, is it?

Deborah Fazan: I totally agree with you. That is why I think of something like a mobile unit that can go out to different areas and can just be there. I know that the engagement events are larger scale and involve more people but I also think that there is an area where smaller-scale events, such as stands perhaps in local—

Q52   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: I am concerned about whether you are actually receiving the whole picture because, as my colleague, Mr Cowan, has said, in the evidence that has come into this Committee we have seen a catalogue of complaints and lack of trust. You said earlier in your evidence that it was when your details were clearly put on all the documentation, which we had a discussion about when you came to meet with me, that you had increased contact with your office. Do you really feel that you are actually seeing the whole picture? For example, how many residents in my constituency have you met?

Deborah Fazan: I am sorry I did not bring that information. I can come back to you on that but I don’t have that detail with me.

Q53   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: I am not aware that you have had an event or been at an event in my constituency, for example, but I could be wrong of course.

Deborah Fazan: To be honest with you I don’t think I have been to one in your consistency, no. I have been to ones at Southam, at Langley, at Little Haywood, so up and down the line of route. As I say, I was going to be at one at Aylesbury today but I am here instead; otherwise I would have been there as well. I don’t go to all of them, no.

Q54   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: No, but in judging your effectiveness and the creation of this part-time role, it is important that we as a Committee understand what your exposure is. You mentioned the mitigation forum that I invited you to join here in the House, and I got the impression that you were quite surprised to hear from a range of colleagues’ offices exactly what was happening in our offices in terms of the complaints and the lack of trust between the people most affected by this project and the project promoters. I think you were surprised. I don’t want to put words into your mouth.

Deborah Fazan: Yes, I was surprised because obviously I see part of it but I don’t see all of it. I am not there to oversee all the complaints that come into HS2. That is not my role at all. There is a formal four-step complaints process and I sit outside of that, so I would not necessarily see the complaints that come in in any event.

Q55   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Do you not think that that is self-defeating? Surely, if you are in the role as the Residents’ Commissioner, you should see all the complaints that come in to HS2 because, effectively, they are being concealed from you if they are going through a different process.

Deborah Fazan: I am not there as a complaints—

Q56   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: But to understand how you can improve communications, you need to see the complaints that are being received, surely?

Deborah Fazan: If the complaints are pertinent to the property schemes then I would become aware of them, somebody would talk to me about them, but if they have nothing to do with the property schemes or to do with communications then I am not sure why I would see them. I cannot answer because I don’t know the details of them.

Q57   Chair: May I press you on an example that has been brought to us by no less than the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow? Would you have an interest in a disturbance claim?

Deborah Fazan: No.

Chair: No. In that case, I will reserve that question for the next panel of witnesses.

Q58   Tom Tugendhat: I was going to go straight on from that on to engaging with the communication. Do you at least recognise some of the failings that have been reported in the PHSO report?

Deborah Fazan: Yes, as I said, I do recognise some of the failings there, and I think that the PHSO report was very clear in saying that HS2 needed basically to be very clear about what could and could not be achieved with residents and I don’t think it was in that particular instance.

Q59   Tom Tugendhat: You also told us earlier that you have access to the board, you report to the board and you talk to the board and that they don’t try to edit your words in any way. Do you feel that your comments have been implemented? Because you appeared to suggest earlier—and I may be putting words in your mouth, so correct me if I am—that there was no evidence yet that they had been.

Deborah Fazan: Some have and some haven’t. As I said in my third report, I am disappointed and somewhat frustrated at the length of time some things take to happen. Whether or not that is because HS2 is a large organisation, I do not know, but some things that are perhaps endorsed and agreed by the board take longer to manifest. One of the examples perhaps is the 11 people that are now being recruited. The board endorsed that more people were needed on the ground but it has taken a considerable amount of time to get those posts advertised.

Q60   Tom Tugendhat: That is one tangible improvement but do you actually feel that you are making a difference? Because I read all these things: I have read all the reports that we have had from PHSO and I have read all the papers that we have had from the committee, and it just strikes me as though you are raising complaints that are then being brushed over by and large.

Deborah Fazan: I don’t think so. If I felt that they were being brushed over and there wasn’t anything coming out of this I would not stay in the role. I am a chartered surveyor. I don’t do this because I don’t think that I can be effective. I do this because I want to be effective.

Q61   Tom Tugendhat: What actions have you suggested for complaint handling then?

Deborah Fazan: What I suggested in my evidence dealing with complaint handling is that there should be more of a central log. One of the issues is that individuals’ queries and complaints can go into departments and it is only when they get to the formal complaint process that they would necessarily go into the central log. I think that for co-ordination of responses and to understand perhaps if a resident or someone else has a series of complaints, they should all be centralised.

Q62   Tom Tugendhat: When did you suggest that to the board?

Deborah Fazan: Funnily enough, I have only recently suggested it. It has not gone into my last report but it is something I have been discussing with the non-exec directors. There was only somebody formally brought in as the—I cannot remember her term, I am sorry—I think public response manager, who came in last year, who is there as a central co-ordinator for all complaints handling.

Q63   Tom Tugendhat: You expect this now to be implemented almost immediately?

Deborah Fazan: I would hope it is going to be implemented almost immediately, yes, but it is a suggestion that I have made. It is up to HS2 how they take it forward.

Q64   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: In your written evidence to us—and thank you very much for that—you say you have seen a clear commitment by HS2 Ltd to improve since your appointment, but you remain disappointed that there is still no effective platform for those who are not part of the petitioning process to easily resolve queries. Now that the Select Committee has finished its work here, there is a vacuum, which has been expressed to me by constituents saying, “Who do we complain to? We no longer have Robert Syms and the panel to complain to.” How would you see that problem being solved?

Deborah Fazan: I think the new people who are being recruited, as well as the three more senior community engagement people, will provide visibility for access to HS2. That is my hope of those roles but, obviously, as they are not in place yet, I cannot be specific about how that is going to work.

Q65   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Don’t you think that these people should have been the first that were appointed, rather than six years after this project was first announced still having trouble recruiting people?

Deborah Fazan: Personally, yes. But that is why I have been suggesting that they should be there from the time I brought my first report out.

Q66   Chair: May I ask you to exercise your independent judgment for us? What do you think of the leadership and oversight of the interface between HS2 and those who are being affected by it?

Deborah Fazan: Sorry, can you repeat the question please?

Chair Well, what do you think about the leadership and oversight by HS2 of the relationship, the management of the relationship between HS2 and the people being affected by the scheme? How good is it?

Deborah Fazan: Sorry, I am struggling to work out—

Chair: Okay, how good is the board at dealing with complaints and all these issues that you deal with?

Deborah Fazan: I think the board is—it is a difficult one for me to answer, just to know how—

Chair: Well, you must have a view.

Deborah Fazan: —good are they at dealing with complaints.

              Chair: Yes.

Deborah Fazan: The complaints that I have seen, seem to me to have been dealt with very professionally. I have seen the responses that go out. I have seen one of the directors who has actually gone up to talk to the residents about a complaint that they had. As far as I am concerned, from what I have seen, it has been dealt with very professionally and very actively.

Q67   Chair: So the 71 pieces of evidence we have received, most of which is pretty devastating in terms of its criticism of HS2, this is just the inevitable fall out of building a big railway, is it?

Deborah Fazan: I do not know if it is all inevitable but there inevitably will be people who don’t like what is happening and the 71 people, when you consider how many people this railway is going to affect, are a proportion only of those people who are affected. I cannot talk to you about how the senior management engage with every single individual resident. I know that there hasn’t perhaps been enough engagement. In fact I know there hasn’t been enough engagement, which is why I have been pushing for more engagement.

Q68   Chair: Right, okay. So, on a scale of one to 10, how well do you think the board and the company have been doing with this engagement?

Deborah Fazan: So far, probably about a six.

Q69   Chair: Six, okay, that is helpful. What do you think it must be like to be a member of staff working for HS2 and dealing with members of the public?

Deborah Fazan: I can answer that in terms of the fact that I sit and listen to the help desk where I am located in one of HS2’s offices, so I know that some of the questions that come through are difficult, but I also know that they are dealt with professionally, politely and they are always helped or, if they cannot be immediately helped, then they are asked to write in with their query and that is put through to the person who can help them.

Q70   Chair: The reports that we have had in evidence from colleagues and Members of Parliament include, for example, Craig Tracey MP, a Warwickshire MP, who says, “Too frequently HS2 are not proactive with working with local communities and only provide information when prompted to do so.” Andrea Leadsom MP told us, “Communication between HS2 Ltd and affected communities is very much sub-par.” Nick Hurd MP says, “HS2 have handled the consultation poorly and has made matters worse. Plans have constantly changed. There have been major gaps in information and inadequate transparency. There have been inconsistent messages and assertions.” What do you think it would be like working for an organisation that is getting this kind of criticism and being on the frontline at these public meetings?

Deborah Fazan: I don't know because I don’t view myself as working for the organisation in that way. I view myself as being independent but I have been at some of the—

Q71   Chair: I am asking you: you must deal with the people, you must interface with the people who are doing these roles. What do they—

Deborah Fazan: I do, and they are there to try to help people. The difficulty—

Q72   Chair: How well supported do you think they are?

Deborah Fazan: I believe they are well supported but I think some of the difficulties, as I said earlier, are about not drip-feeding information. One of the comments that you made just then was that plans are not clear. Until plans are clear and things are clarified, giving part information, or giving information about what is being considered, can then raise expectations and cause difficulties in other ways. I do not believe HS2 have done enough so far. I believe that they are aware they have not done enough so far to engage with residents and that is—

Q73   Chair: In any organisation that is dealing with complaints, people who are making the complaints need to feel that the people dealing with the complaints understand them. How well-understood do you think members of the public feel in this situation?

Deborah Fazan: From what you are saying there and from the discussions I have had with Mrs Gillan and other MPs then some constituents and residents don’t feel that they are well understood, but that is the difficulty with putting this sort of major infrastructure project—

Q74   Chair: Do you have any idea of what the levels of staff engagement are within the organisation?

Deborah Fazan: There are different areas of engagement, so the land and property team deal primarily with residents who are applying to the schemes—

Chair: Sorry, I am asking a different question.

Deborah Fazan: Sorry.

Chair: In terms of how well engaged the staff feel with the organisation that they are working for. Do you have any idea about that?

Deborah Fazan: I am sorry, that is not something that I have any—

Q75   Chair: No, but in terms of your holding them to account, isn’t that something you should be aware of?

Deborah Fazan: I am holding HS2 to account for how they deal with residents.

Q76   Chair: No, but if you are trying to improve their performance, in terms of how they do that, how will they support their staff on the frontline? Isn’t that quite a material consideration?

Deborah Fazan: I haven’t looked at it in those terms, so I will look at that as a—

Q77   Chair: I would encourage you to—

Deborah Fazan: I will.

              Chair: —because the evidence we receive in this Committee about how well organisations are run is so often about, “Well, you can’t expect your employees to look after your customers if you’re not looking after your employees,” as it was put to us by the chief executive of FirstBank when we were looking at complaint handling. It leads me to wonder whether in fact, however valiantly you are doing in your role, you are in danger of being more use to HS2 than you are to the people you are seeking to support. What would you say to that?

Deborah Fazan: I would hope not. As I said, my contact details are out there. Anybody can write to me or contact me and I will, as far as I can, look into whatever their issue is, whether it is about communication, whether it is about a specific area.

Q78   Chair: What specific extra powers or capacity do you think you should have in order to be able to do your job better?

Deborah Fazan: I would like to see some of the recommendations that I put forward go forward much more quickly, so I think perhaps some of it is about making sure these things that are agreed, when they are agreed by the board and endorsed, are taken forward in a more—

Q79   Chair: Sometimes you feel a little bit powerless?

Deborah Fazan: I think we all do sometimes.

Chair: Thank you very much indeed. We are very grateful for you coming to give evidence and thank you for the role that you are undertaking. It seems a little bit thankless some of the time but I am sure it is appreciated by many people.

Deborah Fazan: Thank you.

Q80   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: May I add my thanks because in all my dealings with the Residents’ Commissioner she has been thoroughly accommodating of the problems and the issues, and I hope at some stage that she will be responded to by HS2 in a much more timely and effective fashion.

Deborah Fazan: Thank you.

              Chair: Thank you very much.

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Mr Robert Goodwill MP, Minister of State, Department for Transport, Simon Kirby, Chief Executive Officer, HS2 Ltd, and Oliver Bayne, Director of Land and Property, HS2 Ltd, gave evidence.

Q81   Chair: Welcome to our new panel and could each of you identify yourselves for the Committee, please?

Simon Kirby: Simon Kirby, Chief Executive High Speed Two Ltd.

Mr Robert Goodwill: Robert Goodwill, Minister of State, Department for Transport and Minister for HS2.

Oliver Bayne: Oliver Bayne, Land and Property Director at HS2 Ltd.

Q82   Chair: Can I first ask a slightly unfair question, Mr Kirby? Your Residents’ Commissioner is paid £590 a day. How much are you paid?

Simon Kirby: My salary is £750,000 per annum.

Kate Hoey: A month?

Simon Kirby: Sorry—

Kate Hoey: You never know these days.

Chair: £750,000 per annum?

Simon Kirby: Correct, yes.

Kate Hoey: Wow.

Tom Tugendhat: Even Paul would have winced at that.

Q83   Chair: What do you think about the differential between your salary and the Residents’ Commissioner’s salary?

Simon Kirby: I think my role was advertised openly. I went through a process to get the role. It is really important that HS2 is delivered on time and on budget. It is really important we recruit the right calibre people to do that. My role was appointed by an independent group of a number of Government Departments and my salary was set by the group. My performance is for others to judge, frankly.

Q84   Chair: How really important is it to record the importance of what the Residents’ Commissioner does in the reflection of her salary?

Simon Kirby: I think the Residents’ Commissioner does her role. She does it very well. She is independent—

Q85   Chair: You justified your salary on the basis of how important it was to deliver this project on time. How important is it that the Residents’ Commissioner delivers her role as effectively?

Simon Kirby: I think it is very important everybody on High Speed Two delivers their role as professionally as possible.

I would also like to apologise to the Committee for the report before I answer the question any more. The report does reflect the organisation between 2012 and 2014 and, as recognised in the report as well, a number of steps have been taken since then. I would not want to sit here, though, and say, “We cannot improve further.” We are a learning organisation and we do want to achieve higher standards but I think you need to put it in that context of the overall report.

To answer your specific question, I think the independence of the Residents’ Commissioner is an absolutely key part of that process but, as I am sure we will explore through the rest of the discussion, there are several processes in terms of a complaints process, a communications process, which we have reviewed and as a result of the Ombudsman’s report we are doing a further independent review at the moment. If things come out of that review that say we should improve further, absolutely, we will review the process and improve it further. Since the report was produced and the timescale it reflects, we have recruited a number of new people from projects like the Olympics and Crossrail, who are bringing a different dimension in terms of how we communicate with communities. There is no doubt we have learnt and I am sure we can improve further as well.

Q86   Chair: Thank you for that. That is appreciated. I think we should value high-quality engineering skills and high-quality engineering leadership in the way that we are in this project, but you could understand some people feeling that the people getting in the way of this railway are not considered as important as delivering the project on time and on budget.

Simon Kirby: One of the first things I did in this job was I toured the whole route, and when you do that you absolutely see the impact this project has on people and communities. I would want to give nothing other than an impression that we are not complacent in that space. It absolutely is about focusing on delivering this project professionally.

Chair: We are going to test the sincerity of that remark in our cross-examination.

Q87   Mr David Jones: Good morning. Mr Kirby, you mentioned that you hoped that you had learned over recent years, but we have just heard from the Residents’ Commissioner that one of the matters she is concerned about is the slow response to her recommendations, so that would tend to imply that there is still a bit more learning to do.

Simon Kirby: I would agree there is always learning to do. I think you have to put it in context. This is the biggest stakeholder consultation that has ever been undertaken, we believe, in this country. It is the biggest project since the national grid or the motorway network was delivered many years ago. You have to put it in context. We have had over 140,000 interactions with the public. Our call centres have received 37,000 calls. The level of engagement with the communities has been extensive. It could have been better, and that is reflected in the report, and I am sure there are further things we can do to improve our process.

Am I surprised that the Residents’ Commissioner says we are not going fast enough at the moment? Given the fact we are a growing organisation, the project itself is transitioning from a concept through to delivery, we are a learning organisation. I think the independent challenge that we could do things quicker is absolutely right and we aspire to do things quicker. Since the report we have recruited the four senior stakeholder communication roles and, as a number of members may be aware, we have adverts in local newspaper at the moment now seeking another seven roles. We are looking for local people to join us in those roles who understand the diversity of the communities we relate to. Along the route we relate to a number of different diverse communities, from London obviously all the way up to Birmingham, different spoken languages. How we engage with those communities is absolutely key and we just cannot be complacent with that. The harder to reach groups are, by definition, always harder to reach and I am sure there is more we can do and, as I said before, if we can improve our process more we will do.

Q88   Mr David Jones: Having heard the criticism from the Residents’ Commissioner today, can we take it that you will be going away and doing something to improve the response to the recommendations that she makes?

Simon Kirby: What I can absolutely assure the Committee is that on each report of the Residents’ Commissioner that comes to the board there is a very engaging discussion with the non-exec members of the board, the executive members on the board and the Commissioner in terms of what we can do and when we can do it.

There are always things we can do to improve our communications process. We had a number of events last year, as mentioned by the previous witness. We have events running at the moment. We will run more events. They are just part of it. Tomorrow we are opening a drop-in centre in Camden for people to come and talk to us about the impact on residents in Camden. I use that as an example because there are many things we are doing to try to improve the engagement, which is a very large and diverse stakeholder community.

Q89   Mr David Jones: But I did ask you specifically whether in response to the criticisms you have heard from the Commissioner today you would be going away and addressing those criticisms and doing something to improve your procedures in respect of those particular matters.

Simon Kirby: Absolutely. The main criticism is around pace and we are driving as fast as we can to get the right people into the right roles. If you go back to before the hybrid Bill was submitted there were case officers communicating with communities. Through the process of the hybrid Bill submission, that then went into a petitioning process. I think the criticism that we could have engaged sooner through that process is right. That is why we are currently recruiting these various roles at the moment. We have the independent review as a result of the Ombudsman’s report of our processes. That review is due on 26 February, I believe, and if that is not achieved that is a discussion between the Ombudsman and the independent reviewer. Anything from that that means we should improve further we will do.

Q90   Mr David Jones: It is now some three months since publication of the PHSO’s report, which contained a number of recommendations including on apologies and payment of compensation. Have all the recommendations been implemented?

Simon Kirby: Yes, they have. I have apologised personally to the individual people involved; payments have been made to five out of the six. The sixth—at the moment there is an individual case with somebody’s property—is being dealt with. That will run through and that will be done. Yes, the other recommendations have been followed through, the main one being the independent review that currently, as I mentioned before, is due on 26 February.

Q91   Mr David Jones: Have you yet made the additional payment that was recommended in one specific case, or is that the one you have just mentioned?

Simon Kirby: That is the one I have just mentioned.

Q92   Mr David Jones: Okay, that is fine. You mentioned the independent review. That has now been set up. Could you tell us what the scope of that review is, please?

Simon Kirby: There are terms of reference for the review. It is quite far reaching in terms of its breadth in terms of our stakeholder communications. The person running the review is a qualified solicitor and has extensive experience in the Independent Police Complaints Commission. He has open access to anybody he wants to meet and I am aware he has met a lot of people within the business, within Government and broader areas to fulfil that remit. This is a massive programme—the complexity, the individual issues that people have we just cannot be complacent about—so whatever comes from that if there are things we can do to improve it we will do it.

Q93   Mr David Jones: Yes. Could you give me the headlines of the scope of the review, please?

Simon Kirby: Yes. The review itself is looking at the process of complaints. It is looking at the process of interactions with the public, how we deal with that. That is all process.

It is also looking at the quality of engagement. We are getting different people’s perspective as well, in terms of the quality of the interaction. It is very easy for these discussions to become about process and this is about people. We are very mindful of that and, as a leadership team, we are very mindful of the responsibilities we have. Can we do it better? Yes, we can.

Q94   Mr David Jones: Can we expect the outcome of the review to be published before the end of the month?

Simon Kirby: I am not able to answer that. That is a question between the person doing the review and the Ombudsman. What I would say is that—

Q95   Mr David Jones: Well, that was the recommendation.

Simon Kirby: That is the recommendation and that, to my knowledge, is the objective of the review. If the reviewer needs more time I believe they will go to the Ombudsman and seek more time. I am not aware at the moment it will not be complete by the 26th.

Q96   Mr David Jones: We have one week left in February.

Simon Kirby: Sure.

              Mr David Jones: Have you had no inkling yet as to whether or not more time will be required or asked for?

Simon Kirby: I believe there may be some more time required but I have not had that confirmed because the process took about four weeks to get the review going, but I am not aware that is an absolute position.

Q97   Chair: It sounds like the same story as responding to the Residents’ Commissioner. It takes too long.

Simon Kirby: I think it is really important this is an independent review, and it is a totally independent review so I have had no input into the actual review itself, appointing the reviewer, the terms of reference agreed with the Ombudsman—it is independent, so I think the quality of it is the most important aspect.

What I was also going to say is this is an ongoing area, there is the review with the independent reviewer; we are recruiting new people to look at our communications processes. If it helps the Committee I will be more than happy to come back at a subsequent committee and give an update in terms of what we have done since the review and since the recruitment of new people.

Q98   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Mr Kirby, the Bill is about to complete its committee stage here. Do you not think this is all far too little, far too late and that there have been six years of damage done to people trying to engage with your organisation?

Simon Kirby: I think you have to look at the context in terms of the scale of the interaction we had with the public, and then there is a parliamentary process that obviously we must honour and professionally manage. I am being completely open. Could we have done things better, earlier? I think the report exposes the fact that we could have done. Looking forward now, it is about: where can we improve further? A lot has been done in the last couple of years to improve the process. Can it be better? Can the communication sessions be done better? Well, we do exit reviews at the end of each of the communications sessions. The one we did last year we have had feedback on. I could quote statistics but clearly they are just statistics. If 72% were happy with the sessions that means 28% weren’t. Why weren’t they happy? What we are seeing now is it is much more around specific issues and specific needs, which of course you get feedback on from as well from your constituents. So is there more we can do? Yes, there is.

Q99   Mr David Jones: Mr Goodwill, the PHSO’s report was rather bleak reading. What action will the Government be taking as a consequence of it?

Mr Robert Goodwill: Certainly the case that the Ombudsman was looking at is a case that I was personally involved with because of the complainant’s Member of Parliament, who came to me. Indeed I had lunch with the lead resident in this particular community in the Terrace cafeteria and heard about the issues first hand and fed in those particular concerns.

Without going into the specifics in too much detail—and I am sure HS2 will respond—I think at the outset we were over-ambitious as to what could be deliverable. The complexities of transplanting a community to another location within the immediate environs, with planning restrictions, the fact that, for example, the local authority was intending to insist that we demolish the 11 properties before the new properties could be built or when they were built, because we had not finalised the line of route that could have ended up with demolishing properties that at the end were not needed for the actual programme. I think at the outset we were over-ambitious in our wish to try to address that community’s needs and I think in hindsight that we maybe should ensure that we don’t raise people’s expectations unduly. I think this is probably a unique case that I have seen where we have that type of wish among a group of residents to actually move en bloc, and I think that is something that is unlikely to recur.

Going back to the point you make about the Residents’ Commissioner, I am very satisfied with her independence. I don’t think the fact that her salary is paid by HS2 and the fact that she works in their office compromises her independence. It is about the person doing that job and I think Deborah Fazan is absolutely committed to representing the residents who raised concerns and making sure those are raised with HS2 and, indeed, with myself. I met with Deborah the week before last and made it clear to her if there were issues where she felt she should come straight to me, which were of such importance that the Minister should get involved at the outset, she should do that and I am sure HS2 will be content for that to happen.

Q100   Mr David Jones: We have just heard from her that she is concerned about slowness of response still. Is that a matter that concerns you?

Mr Robert Goodwill: Yes, I think the response needs to be as quick as is practical. The issues we are looking at are general or complex; there are a number of specific issues along the process that may get complex. For example, at the very outset in terms of the line of route, until you have finalised the line of route there is a lot of uncertainty and that does create problems that in many ways we are not quickly able to address. We are looking at 2b at the moment. There is some line finessing that we are looking at that may have less impact on some residents and on the environment, but until that decision has been made, until that announcement has been made, there is uncertainty out there.

Similarly with the hybrid scheme; the fact that people are petitioning means in some ways it is slightly out of our hands. It also means that we need to look at the petitions in the order that they are being considered by the Committee. It may well be if somebody is not being seen for four or five weeks, they may think they are being ignored. What we are indeed doing is looking at the people who are intending to petition sooner and trying to address some of their problems so that we can sort out their problems and address their concerns before they need to get into the Committee and actually petition, and we have been very successful in addressing many of those concerns. But if you are somebody in the pipeline waiting, I can understand how you might be particularly concerned. Then of course—

Q101   Mr David Jones: Pausing briefly there if I may: you mentioned that people may feel that they are being ignored, but surely, isn’t it part of the function of HS2 to ensure that people are kept regularly informed so they don’t feel they are being ignored?

Mr Robert Goodwill: As far as they can, I hope and I would wish they would do that but in terms of the—

Q102   Mr David Jones: The first question was: what is the Government going to do in response to that report?

Mr Robert Goodwill: It is down to the capacity of the people in HS2. I regularly engage with the people who have been involved with the hybrid Bill. They are working very hard indeed to sort out some quite difficult problems, some difficult property issues, some relocation issues and the actual capacity we have to do that during the very intense period of the hybrid Bill and the petitioning process can put a lot of pressure on. So, while I would wish that people did not feel they are being ignored, we do need to make sure that we address people’s concerns as they come into the petitioning process so that we can try to address those because we are very keen to make sure that people who do have genuine concerns, which can be addressed by HS2, do get them addressed. Indeed in many cases petitions have been withdrawn, large numbers of petitions have been withdrawn, because we have been able to do that. It is a sort of sausage-making process and we need to make sure that we can address them as they go in. I know that—

Q103   Mr David Jones: You seem to be telling me that there is not much you can do to improve matters.

Mr Robert Goodwill: As we move on to phase 2a and 2b we should definitely look at how we can give people updates but we do need to ensure absolutely that we maintain the cutting edge of what we are doing at the point when people are coming in to petition. What we would not want is a situation when somebody arrived to give their petition where we are not ready, we have not fully negotiated with them, and we are not ready to address their concerns. Then the Committee itself may feel we are not doing our job properly.

One or two of the other issues that I think will improve in the future without doubt is in terms of the uncertainty of the property schemes. At the very start of this there was a lot of speculation about how the property schemes would work; whether we would have a bond. I believe we now have a robust scheme, particularly the need-to-sell scheme that I believe is working very well. We are looking, following Royal Assent, to some of the homeowner payment schemes that will ensure that people who do not move away—people who stay there but have a degree of disruption of their lives due to construction or operation of the railway—do get those payments. I think we now have a mature property compensation scheme that I think, generally speaking, will be the model for the further stages of the scheme, so I think that uncertainty about property will not be there in quite the same way. But certainly at the outset there was great concern.

Just one example where I picked them up: we were writing to people that we might have to go across their land for drainage or overhead line operations. The letter that we wrote to them was a complete—you are a lawyer, Mr Jones, you might have understood it but I certainly could not understand what it was saying. At the outset it looked like we needed to be on their land for four years; what it meant was there was a period of four years over which at some point we might need to go across their land to move an overhead line. I insisted that we sent an explanation note alongside the legal wording that we had to provide for the robustness of the legal situation. So, where we can provide better explanation, where we can improve the situation, I instructed that that was done. That has been done in future when we have written these rather legalistic letters, which then have an explanatory note.

Chair: I must ask you to give much shorter answers; otherwise we are going to be here a very long time.

Q104   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Can I pick up on that, Minister, because we have written evidence here from Jeremy Wright, who I believe is our Attorney General, and he says, “The corridor deals were certainly unsatisfactory in terms of the way in which they put pressure on individual constituents to reach a settlement.” Now you said that these corridor deals were the way you went about doing your business, but the Attorney General considers that they were unsatisfactory and “put pressure on individual constituents to reach a settlement.” Is that the way Government should do business?

Mr Robert Goodwill: We have certainly looked at the way that properties are valued and one of the areas where we tend to get pressure is where there is dispute over the value of a particular property, particularly where a property needs to be bought because it is going to be required along the line of route as opposed to some of the other schemes where people are blighted because of the proximity. I think it is important that we do try to improve that. I know last night the Select Committee made a number of recommendations, and one of the areas where I think we will be pushing at an open door is the use of local valuers to a greater extent. Some of the concerns were that the people who came to value those properties did not understand the local property market, and I think the case that Mr Wright raises may be one of those. I think we should have better confidence in the process with the use of local valuers.

There are a number of other areas where we can improve the way the process works, and we are certainly not only learning from experience but learning from the points that the Select Committee has made, and also points, indeed, that this Committee may wish to suggest that might improve the scheme.

Q105   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Minister, I do hope that that is true, because what has been inflicted on people on phase 1 of the scheme should not be inflicted on people in phase 2 of the scheme. Nevertheless, those messages were being communicated both to the Department for Transport and to HS2 Ltd for some time. It is only when we got to the end of the Commons process that finally somebody has listened. Maybe we should have a Commissioner looking at the receiving of communications from people outside this process into the Department and into HS2 noted because—

Mr Robert Goodwill: Certainly the person who was listening about local valuations was me and I understood the importance of having that local knowledge, particularly where you have communities where property is very different. It is one thing valuing a street of 20 houses that are virtually identical, but in many of these rural communities there can be factors that maybe are not obvious to valuers coming in from outside, albeit they are well qualified and experienced valuers, so that is one of the areas that we are looking at. We are also looking at some of the reassurances that we can give to landowners about capital gains tax rollover and inheritance tax, so there are a number of areas where I think we do need to reassure people more. This has been a learning process and I am confident that we have learnt in important areas, and if we need to learn more than the Residents’ Commissioner is absolutely the way that those lessons can be brought home to HS2.

Q106   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: It is fair to say that you are now learning the lessons at the end of this process, when these issues were flagged up to the Department and HS2 Ltd much earlier in the process. So the criticism from the Residents’ Commissioner—that things take time—seems to be spreading right across the whole project in terms of listening to the messages that people are bringing to your door about the problems.

Mr Robert Goodwill: Yes, it is a massive project and we have been building capacity. I was at a recent meeting for HS2 employees, and it was surprising just how many people in the room had only been working for the project for maybe six, seven, eight months, so the momentum is gaining in the number of people we have, the capacity we have, and the capability we have. Of course we have people now with experience on the project who will understand some of these problems more than maybe we had at the outset.

Q107   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: In fact, your capacity building studies and the way in which the project has been built up, those processes failed?

Mr Robert Goodwill: I would say that, with any project of this sort, we will learn from experience and we will build capacity, in terms of the manpower that we have, to enable us to do that. But let’s not forget that, compared with other projects up and down the country, compared with the A14 Huntingdon bypass, compared with the new Lower Thames crossing—massive engineering projects that impact people—the actual schemes available for people affected by HS2 go way and above anything that is available anywhere else in the country, and way and above anything offered to people affected by construction in their area. We believe we have the best scheme ever that has been delivered in this country, in terms of giving people the help, giving people compensation, and reacting to their concerns. Certainly, if you compare it with any other project, a road project or another rail project, we are in new territory completely.

Q108   Mr David Jones: Mr Goodwill, given the criticisms in the Ombudsman’s report, do you think that there is a need for your Department to monitor HS2 more closely?

Mr Robert Goodwill: We do monitor HS2. For example, this afternoon the Secretary of State and I have a meeting that is called HS2 Weekly; we have weekly meetings. The Secretary of State meets regularly with David Higgins. I engage with the Residents’ Commissioner myself and, of course, I think the most important line of communication, in terms of residents and the Government and Ministers, is the way that Members of Parliament themselves engage. The fact that when the bell rings we are all in the lobby together, people buttonhole me, people cajole me. I was lobbied this morning on my way to breakfast by Mr Andrew Bridgen who had an issue he wanted to raise with me directly relating to a property, a business, affected by HS2. So there is that fast track and, where they are very important issues, I know Members of Parliament are always—my door is always open as they say, and I can have those issues raised with me and I will feed them back down to HS2 so that they can react to those. It is a very quick process, a matter of hours from that being raised with me to—

Q109   Mr David Jones: So you are inviting MPs to buttonhole you as regularly as possible in the lobby?

Mr Robert Goodwill: Yes, absolutely, or come and meet me with residents. I have regular meetings with colleagues, sometimes with their constituents, sometimes a group of colleagues, and that is a very important short circuit to whatever other systems are out there for residents to engage. The role of the Member of Parliament is key—as Mrs Gillan understands all too well—in raising issues with Members of Parliament, and we do try as far as possible to react to those concerns.

Q110   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Minister, you know I invited the Secretary of State to visit my constituency and he agreed on the floor of the House to do so back in November, I think it was. I believe he has finally found a date in his diary sometime in March to visit my constituency. The speed of buttonholing Ministers is much exaggerated, I think.

Chair: HS2 is not high-speed Secretary of State.

Q111   Mr Andrew Turner: The uncertainty faced by families over the future of their small community was unnecessarily prolonged and they experienced worry, distress and frustration. Mr Kirby, how will you ensure that this does not happen again to other communities and provide more certainty for people affected by HS2?

Simon Kirby: As we have said a few times, this is about people. It is very easy to talk about process, and as a leadership team we continually reflect on our responsibility to engage with people. There are examples where we could have done that better on phase 1. We have done a lot to change in the last two years in terms of improving that. One of our main focuses now is on phase 2a and 2b in terms of what learning can we take from phase 1. We have talked around some of those issues already—there is the Committee report that came out last night—and one of the most powerful areas that I have seen is just by getting people who have done this before on big similar projects, so Crossrail, the Olympics, bringing a different dimension to how you communicate with people.

I have been to the committee myself and I have seen people represent those various aspects, and ultimately this is a huge scale project that will impact on people. That does not mean to say though that we should not do it with the most high-integrity, professional manner and we have to learn from areas that we have not met those standards, as laid out in the report, which as I say, I apologise to the Committee for and I have apologised to the individuals. The key thing here is about learning. There will be some individuals whose needs we will never meet because clearly the project is disturbing in a way that just does not meet their individual needs, whatever those are.

Q112   Mr Andrew Turner: Minister, how concerned are you about the PHSO’s findings about the unsatisfactory way in which the compensation schemes have been administered?

Mr Robert Goodwill: The compensation schemes, as such?

Mr Andrew Turner: Yes.

Mr Robert Goodwill: Obviously we take on board those criticisms. As I have already mentioned, there are a number of ways that we can improve the way the compensation schemes are administered; I mentioned local valuers. The Need to Sell scheme is a scheme that we have up and running in a way that I am content with now. It maybe does not always operate as quickly as it might, and some of that may be down to the fact that sometimes information that we need is not always forthcoming at the outset, and people get frustrated because we cannot progress their applications because sometimes important information is not there; sometimes financial information that is pertinent to the criteria that need to be met under the Need to Sell scheme. But certainly, as I understand it, and I have not read in full the report last night from the hybrid committee, they are not suggesting wholesale changes to the compensation schemes that we have in place, certainly not moving towards a property bond scheme, which in many people’s view would be seen as a blank cheque for the Government. I think what we need to do is work with the schemes that we have at the moment, which I think are working well. Certainly Express Purchase—

Q113   Chair: I am going to stop you. You have been going on for an awfully long time. The question was how concerned are you about the unsatisfactory way in which the compensation schemes have been administered? Are you not concerned at all; are you very concerned? Where are you in that scale?

Mr Robert Goodwill: I think at base of the schemes we have are good schemes but I think they require improvement.

Q114   Chair: Does that mean you are not concerned?

Mr Robert Goodwill: I am concerned that in some cases they have been slower—

Q115   Chair: Right. So how concerned are you?

Mr Robert Goodwill: I am very concerned in cases where we have not been able to progress them quickly—in other cases, of course where complaints have not been made, we have managed to come to an agreement very quickly with people—and sometimes that has been down to additional information that was not forthcoming. I can think of one particular issue where somebody had an additional property and we did not understand what that meant.

Q116   Mr Andrew Turner: Isn’t this just too big a project for you, for other Ministers, for Mr Kirby? It is too big. If you would concentrate on one section at a time, there would be more chance of you getting it through.

Mr Robert Goodwill: We are building the scheme in sections, the London to Birmingham section and then 2a to Crewe and 2b. So we are building it in sections, but we are building the capacity to deliver this project. I was in Birmingham—

Q117   Mr Andrew Turner: The problem is we have spent five years working on this and people are very unhappy about the way it is going. You—or rather, Mr Kirby— are only now talking about the project becoming a learning project; that I what I think he said. They are all learning projects, we are learning forever, but the point is less learning and more action.

Mr Robert Goodwill: I think people out there do not realise the capacity we have already built. I was Birmingham just before the recess. We have two floors of a building there full of people planning the project, negotiating property, working out all the details, where you have to divert drainage, where you have to divert services, where you have to work with employers who may need to move their premises. We already are building very large capacity. I think many people out in the country think this is a project we have not even started to get on top of. We have already built a large capability to deliver this project and we are progressing these projects. We have bought large numbers of properties, people are having their concerns addressed and I am confident that as we build capacity we will get better at doing this.

Certainly there is always room for improvement in the way that we can particularly deliver the property schemes in a way that—I would never say people would be satisfied, because if somebody was going to knock my house down and compensate me, I would never be satisfied, but we need to make sure that we treat people with respect and we treat them fairly and we deal with them as quickly as we can, given the unfortunate delays because of the hybrid process, because of line-of-route finalisation and the rest. So it is a big project and there has been uncertainty, but some of that uncertainty is because of the very nature of the way that the project is being rolled out.

Q118   Mr Andrew Turner: Mr Kirby, how will you now ensure that the projects coming from those in proximity to the route, will get the consideration they deserve?

Simon Kirby: We are looking at more types of communication. We have the events set up that we have highlighted in our evidence. We are reviewing those events. We are reviewing different ways of approaching harder to reach communities along the route. One of the issues with the events we set up is they are only as good as the people that know about them and come to them. Do we engage with communities that are harder to reach? We are looking at that as well. This is something that we need to keep looking at and not be complacent that we are doing all that we can.

Briefly, if Mr Jenkin will allow me, just to comment on whether the project too big, I would not accept that point. We have recruited over 500 staff in the last year. We are mobilising and growing a team of expertise from many major projects and those are the people who will be interfacing with communities. Everybody interfaces with people living on the route in some way or form, so we are putting a lot of time into training. All our induction processes cover how we treat complaints and how we listen to people as part of that and we are also investing a lot in customer-complaints-type training. I absolutely agree with the earlier comment: this is only as good as our staff and the engagement of our staff, so we are putting a lot of time and effort into doing just that.

Q119   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: We called for evidence and today we have current letters from my colleagues. Just to give you a flavour of them: The Speaker says, “The promoter” in his opinion, “has shown little or no regard for those adversely affected by the project, whether it be through the application of the Government’s discretionary compensation schemes or its communication with residents.” The Attorney General says, “I must be frank and say that the forums in the areas I represent were not a success. Information provided by HS2 Ltd was fairly sparse. The next phase in engagement is bilateral meetings, which happened partly at my request.” He goes on to say, “There is a lot of work to be done to restore any trust in HS2.” Andrea Leadsom has said, “The communication between HS2 Ltd and affected communities is very much sub-par and there has been little to no improvement, despite numerous representations from constituent colleagues. My office has frequently been frustrated by HS2 Ltd’s head office refusing to transfer calls to relevant departments or individuals and instead requiring further paper trails by e-mail or letter. I am aware that staff members and other officers have experienced the same door-keeping by HS2 Ltd’s telephone operators. Indeed I myself, with your helpline, had difficulty in getting your contact e-mail.” Then Nick Hurd has said, “However, HS2 have handled the consultation poorly and that has made matters worse. Plans have constantly changed. There have been major gaps in information and inadequate transparency. There have been inconsistent messages and assertions made without supporting evidence. As a result, there was a breakdown in trust.” I have to ask, Mr Kirby, aren’t you ashamed to have those as evidence submitted to this Select Committee about your project that you say is improving?

Simon Kirby: First of all, I can assure the Committee that the call centre has been reasserted to give my e-mail and I am totally transparent and open and I get e-mail most days from somebody impacted on the route and letters most days from MPs representing people on the route.

I think you have to put all of this in context of the scale of the project, the number of different interactions we have had. We had 37,000 calls into our call centres. We do measure our complaints very seriously. We have four levels of review of our complaints and I am personally one of those levels of review. When that happens, I get all the people involved in that in a room and discuss that specific complaint. Some of those, as we put in the evidence, we have upheld and agreed with the complainant. Can we do things better? Absolutely, and that has to be our focus now going forward, but I think the Committee must view it in the context of the scale of the project and the number of interactions we have with the public.

Q120   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: But surely the MPs that represent the people along the route should come at the top of your list?

Simon Kirby: Absolutely, I—

Q121   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: Considering the calibre of these people that have put in the representations here, surely these are the people that you should have been engaging with the most, as they are the people that are exposed to their electorates?

Simon Kirby: I think all people are important, individuals of individual cases are very important and we should treat and respect everybody as people. I get correspondence most days from Members of Parliament and I treat those very seriously and each one again I will discuss with individuals involved and personally write the reply to those. I certainly would not accept we do not take them seriously, absolutely not.

Q122   Mrs Cheryl Gillan: But those are still the comments that have come currently from Members of Parliament along the route.

Can I just ask this, Minister—it is pretty tough because HS2 is not your only brief, but as far as communications and engagement are concerned, the PHSO report seems to be just the tip of the iceberg—if you consider the representations that have been made to this Committee by other people, what are you going to do about that now? Are you going to take any action at all or are you just going to apologise and move forward with the plans that you have as they stand?

Mr Robert Goodwill: No, absolutely not. We need to learn the lessons, we need to improve. I have already mentioned one area where early on I suggested we should improve communications in terms of not using too much legal language and explaining to people exactly what the item of correspondence they were going to receive would be. I think small-scale community engagement works very well. I think at the outset one of the problems was that a large community meeting would be made up of people who wanted to come and ask some detailed questions about property issues or other issues in terms of the environment and other people who were campaigning against the railway, for perfectly understandable reasons. I think many people were frustrated in those meetings because neither side got what they wanted. So I think having smaller engagements where people can come in and raise particular issues will help, and certainly the idea of having a van or a vehicle that can go around in that way to enable people to engage. Certainly in terms of property, we now have a case officer for each property, so people have a named person they can deal with, which I think has been one of the criticisms.

Q123   Chair: Is that for HS2, having a named person?

Mr Robert Goodwill: HS2 have a named person in their property team that they can talk to so that they can get the same person every time, because that is often the frustration, particularly if you phone a call centre, you get a different person every time.

Q124   Chair: In terms of your own role, I commend your determination to be available, but you are meant to be the fire engine or the lightning conductor for when the lightning strikes, rather than a permanent and active part of the process. That should be dealt with by HS2. Aren’t you having to be the fire engine much too often and doesn’t HS2 need to improve what they are doing?

Mr Robert Goodwill: One of the problems, mention was made of Nick Hurd, and there was a particular issue in his constituency with the Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre and our wish to try to relocate them to a place that meets their needs. It had been a really difficult and intractable issue to try to address and I know HS2 have been doing their best, but frustrations have bubbled over. I think when frustrations bubble over, it is very important that people understand that I am taking an interest at the top, that I am asking for regular reports, I am speaking to the people on the ground to see what can be done, because there will be cases like the HOAC case where whatever we do will not be 100% satisfactory, like the case of the community that the Ombudsman referred to, where—

Q125   Chair: So you are more than a fire engine, you are part of the process?

Mr Robert Goodwill: I intend to be part of the process. Indeed, I am already engaging with colleagues on phase 2b, where we have some particular issues in the approaches to Leeds as we go through Leicestershire, which we need to address. I have regular meetings with the maps out on the table looking at all these locations, looking at the communities, looking at some of the environmental issues, so I am very much hands-on in terms of where this line is going to be drawn on the map and the communities that will be affected.

Q126   Chair: We have dealt with a great many of our concerns. Mr Kirby, we cannot fail to be impressed by what you have said to us, but the evidence is you are strong on intention and fine words—we appreciate your apology—but the facts of this report suggest that you are short on delivery. How much time do board meetings spend discussing residents and their compensation and how they are handled and how they are dealt with?

Simon Kirby: The board takes all of that extremely seriously.

Q127   Chair: What proportion of an average board meeting is spent discussing that?

Simon Kirby: It clearly would vary. If there is a report, one of the three reports we have mentioned, and that could be a significant amount of the board meeting.

Q128   Chair: What proportion of the time of the board is spent on dealing with residents’ issues?

Simon Kirby: It would vary by board meeting, but a significant amount of the board would get spent around either—

Q129   Chair: Every board meeting?

Simon Kirby: At every board meeting there would be a discussion on community issues, absolutely.

Q130   Chair: How many times does the board review individual cases?

Simon Kirby: When you talk around stakeholder communications, it is quite hard to do that without talking around specific cases, so there would be quite a lot of desire from the non-exec directors and the board to understand specific cases, to talk around a property scheme, a need-to-sell, whatever the specific issue is. So most board meetings I would say we would talk about a specific; every board meeting we would talk around the subject.

Q131   Chair: But in terms of reviewing a case in order to learn from it and in order to review the learning from it, how often does the board do that?

Simon Kirby: The board would discuss the process, whichever one of the purchases or whatever process—

Q132   Chair: We have picked up quite a lot about process. What we are looking for is genuine experiential learning. How does the board supervise genuine experiential learning?

Simon Kirby: The role of the board is to hold the executive to account and clearly that is one of the key aspects: are the executive learning; is the organisation learning. I have mentioned we cannot be complacent in this area.

Q133   Chair: I am sensing from your answers, Mr Kirby, that this is an area the board could improve on. This is something the board could systematise, and by reviewing cases, institutionalise learning more effectively than it already does. It sounds as though the board does a certain amount of firefighting on individual cases, but there is not a systematic review of complaints and complaint handling by the board so that the system learns properly from what is happening. Is that a fair criticism?

Simon Kirby: I think there is some truth in that. I think the key aspect I would not accept is that the non-exec directors are failing to hold the executive to account on these issues. There is a lot of time each board spent on how we are engaging with stakeholders and communities on the route. Can we do more as an organisation to learn? Absolutely, and that is our absolute commitment.

Chair: Okay. I hope you will take that comment away with you as a governance point for the whole of the board, but Mr Flynn, briefly.

Q134   Paul Flynn: Just a very brief one. Could you tell us how much has been spent up until now on this project and how much you are committing to spend?

Simon Kirby: Yes. Obviously we have just been through the spending review. To date we have spent just over £1.2 billion.

Paul Flynn: £1.2 billion?

Simon Kirby: On the project to date.

Q135   Paul Flynn: How many miles of track have been laid?

Simon Kirby: Clearly we are just going through the parliamentary process, so in terms of physical activity, we have been doing some what we call ground investigatory work, which is investigatory work, but as I am sure all members of the Committee are aware, we have not started laying track. Construction is due to start in 2017.

To answer your other question, the total project cost for phase 1, including rolling stock, is £27.2 billion. For the overall project envelope for phase 1 and phase 2, which is the Y network to Leeds and Manchester, the total cost is £55.7 billion.

Q136   Paul Flynn: Could you perhaps explain to the Committee why the learning process that you are undertaking is worth, in salary, five times the salary of the Prime Minister?

Simon Kirby: I think £55.7 billion is a significant taxpayer investment and I absolutely believe it is needed as a step change in the capacity of our rail network. It is also absolutely key that we have a team that is capable of delivering on time and on cost, is not over-dependent on consultants who are not accountable for projects, as indeed some projects that have gone over on time and on cost have been. It is absolutely appropriate we recruit the right quality of people, and we have recruited over 500 people in the last 12 months to get the team to a point where we will be ready for construction at the appropriate time next year. This is about creating the right calibre, the right structure, and we are well on the way to doing that.

As I mentioned at the start, it is not for me to comment on my own performance, but all of our salaries are judged as a comparator against private sector comparisons in a value for money test. But the key thing is this project is delivered on time, on budget, safely, and in a way that is sympathetic to the community as we go forward.

Q137   Chair: Can I come back to how you approach the whole question of complaints, complaint handling and the interface with your public, the residents affected? In engineering, in a big complex project you will be inundated with checklists and checklists will prompt engagement, cross-discipline engagement, in order to rectify problems as they emerge. Do you have checklists? Do you apply the same methodology to dealing with your residents and the complaints from your residents?

Simon Kirby: I sometimes worry about the word “checklist”, because checklist can be about ticking a box. I know you did not mean that, Mr Jenkin, but for me this is about the quality of how we assess it. So we have the complaints process—

Q138   Chair: Yes. I am asking you to apply your engineering skills and your leadership skills—

Simon Kirby: Absolutely, absolutely.

Chair: —in the same way to this problem as you do to all the engineering questions.

Simon Kirby: We have a complaints process. We have had 59 complaints through that process. At the appropriate point—I am the second line of that process—I personally get engaged. Do I look for a standard set of criteria? No, because they are all very different and—

Q139   Chair: Yes, but so are engineering problems, aren’t they?

Simon Kirby: Yes.

Q140   Chair: So can you apply your engineering skills, which must be considerable, and your leadership skills, in the same way to these problems as you do to the engineering questions you are confronting?

Simon Kirby: That is what I try to do. Whether I do that, others will judge, but I guess is what I am saying is that it is not just about a technical problem; it is also about dealing with people in a sympathetic way in other respects.

Q141   Chair: Isn’t leading an engineering project a people issue?

Simon Kirby: I think leading any big business, the success of a business, it is only as good as the people you have in your business.

Q142   Chair: Can you tell me about your staff engagement survey? Do you do one?

Simon Kirby: We do. We do one annually.

Q143   Chair: What does it show?

Simon Kirby: It shows high engagement. We have a very young, new organisation, so we have an average age of 31. We have recruited a significant proportion of that organisation within the last two years.

Q144   Chair: What is your engagement score?

Simon Kirby: The actual levels of engagement are well into the 80s, late 80%, which is very high.

Chair: That is very good, outstanding.

Simon Kirby: We have a very strong focus on that. As an executive team, we put a lot of time into that.

Q145   Chair: Okay. What does it show among the people who are dealing with residents? What was the engagement score among them?

Simon Kirby: It is still high.

Q146   Chair: Yes, but it is not so high, is it?

Simon Kirby: We have 100 staff who are engaged with the petition process in one way or another.

Chair: But it is interesting, it is not as high as—

Simon Kirby: It is not as high, because those staff have difficult roles and as the leader of those staff—

Q147   Chair: Yes, but why should their roles be any more difficult if they are properly supported and feel properly supported, because if they felt properly supported, their engagement would be as high as your engineering staff? There is no excuse.

Simon Kirby: I think you are absolutely right. We try to support our staff as absolutely professionally as we can. We do a significant amount of training, we do a significant amount of—

Q148   Chair: But what is the engagement score among those 100 staff?

Simon Kirby: I would not have that split with me.

Q149   Chair: Could you let us know?

Simon Kirby: We are very happy to put a note to the Committee on that, yes.

Q150   Chair: Thank you. From this particular report, what do you think HS2 has learned?

Simon Kirby: I think if you look at the specific, it would be very easy, with hindsight, to say we probably set too high an expectation and did not manage that specific.

Q151   Chair: Every time an aircraft crashes, that is what we do; hindsight.

Simon Kirby: Yes, and we did not manage the expectations well and clearly a lot of the communication was not—

Q152   Chair: So what learning have you had from that?

Simon Kirby: So what learning have we had from that? We have talked a lot around process—we have changed quite a few things—but the key aspect is down to our people, our staff and the capability of our people that engage, so we are investing a lot now in the communications team, we are recruiting these roles locally and it is really important we learn from that and improve going forward. It is one of reflection: we are not defensive about the report, we welcome the report and we welcome the transparency it brings of where we have improved, and there is clearly quite a lot of recognition in the report of improvements to be made.

Q153   Chair: Could I turn to Mr Bayne, who has sat here very patiently throughout all this? Do you know the engagement of the people in your part?

Oliver Bayne: I do not think that the engagement score is broken down at the level of the land and property team, but I—

Q154   Chair: Oh, so the 100 people who work for you, you do not know their—

Oliver Bayne: It is around 35 people that work for me.

Q155   Chair: Right, but in the department you are working in, you do not know the engagement score.

Oliver Bayne: I do not know the engagement score.

Q156   Chair: How much is your performance judged by the engagement of the people who work for you?

Oliver Bayne: I think the answer to that would be unless the staff are well engaged, they will not be effective, and therefore I would see that as part of the overall assessment of how well the land and property team is doing and therefore how well I am leading them.

Q157   Chair: What do you think you have learned from this report?

Oliver Bayne: I think the point that Mr Kirby makes around managing expectations is a very important one. I think that led us to engage very poorly with the residents associated with this instance and led to a lot of difficult behaviours on our part.

Q158   Chair: But how are you going to make the people you are dealing with feel better understood and better heard, because that is what they really need?

Oliver Bayne: I think from a land and property point of view, it is about understanding their issues and their concerns much more clearly. We have a lot more experience to draw on than we did at—

Q159   Chair: Yes, I agree with that, but how are you going to do that?

Oliver Bayne: I think a lot of this is around making sure there are the right skills and experience. It is very important to me that my team can listen to the people they are working with, they can understand the concerns that they have, put themselves in their shoes and act with respect and integrity. I would expect my team to operate in that sort of way.

Q160   Chair: Mr Kirby, finally, what have you personally learned from the experience of this report?

Simon Kirby: That it is about our people, that we cannot be complacent and that we have to continually strive in every aspect to improve as an organisation. The report has been helpful in that, but it is one of a number of different aspects. Personally, this is about people, this is about communities. We are delivering a huge engineering project, but you have to look at individual people, individual cases. From my own perspective, leading the organisation, my role is to make sure the leadership in the organisation understands that responsibility and treats it very seriously. There is more we can do.

Q161   Chair: Minister, what is the lesson you take from this report?

Mr Robert Goodwill: I think I need to meet more regularly with the Residents’ Commissioner so she can raise issues that maybe are not the big issues she would want to show a red card about but that flag up trends. I need to engage more with local authorities, which have not been mentioned so far, and also ensure that colleagues are aware that there is a line of communication via me that will short-circuit any processes that their constituents might feel frustrated about not moving as quickly as they might.

Q162   Chair: Your point about local authorities: Camden Council is particularly scathing, and maybe a local authority has some lessons to impart to HS2, because obviously a local authority is constantly engaging—

Mr Robert Goodwill: I am in Camden tomorrow, Euston, doing precisely that.

Q163   Chair: Will you have HS2 people with you?

Mr Robert Goodwill: Yes, I think so.

Simon Kirby: Yes, I am there as well.

Mr Robert Goodwill: Oh, Simon is there as well.

Chair: I think it has been a good session; I think it has been productive. We are looking for the improvement, but I daresay the publication of this report is going to attract further complaints to the Ombudsman and we hope that the Ombudsman will have cause to celebrate improvement as much as dealing with complaints. Is there anything you wish to add to this session? There are no questions you wish to press? Thank you very much indeed and we will now break briefly we move on to our next session.

Oral evidence: Follow-up to Public Health Service Ombudsman’s report on High Speed 2, HC 793

                            35