HS2 Committee

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

on the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Monday 7 December 2015 (Afternoon)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Sir Peter Bottomley Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Mr David Crausby Mr Mark Hendrick ______

IN ATTENDANCE:

Timothy Mould QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport

Witnesses:

Nathalie Lieven QC, representing Transport for London and the Greater London Authority Neil Cameron QC, representing London Borough of Camden Stephen Locke and Tim Bellinger, London Transport Users Committee

______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page

Introduction by the Chair 3

Transport for London and the Greater London Authority Statement from Ms Lieven 3

London Borough of Camden Submission from Mr Cameron 4 Response from Mr Mould 6

London Transport Users Committee Submission from Mr Locke 7 Response from Mr Mould 11 Final comments from Mr Locke 14 Additional comments from Mr Bellinger 15

(At 3.43 p.m.)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome to the HS2 Select Committee. We have AP2:163, AP2:164, AP3:83, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority, represented by Nathalie Lieven. Welcome back. You have a short statement for the Committee.

Transport for London and the Greater London Authority

2. MS LIEVEN QC: Thank you, sir. I do indeed. I’m very pleased to say that agreement has been reached between the Mayor, acting on behalf of the GLA/TfL and HS2. I think I should record that the parties have worked extremely hard to resolve the outstanding issues relating to Euston and Hillingdon, and we have reached agreement on ways forward on all the outstanding issues, such that we don’t need to bother this committee.

3. In particular, we’ve made significant progress in terms of taking forward Euston redevelopment, increased use of rail during construction at Euston and reducing construction traffic in Hillingdon. Sir, the position is, as I understand it, that the assurance that’s been agreed will be published shortly albeit, for logistical reasons, we haven’t got it in front of us here.

4. CHAIR: The printer doesn’t work.

5. MS LIEVEN QC: The printer does work, but it’s in Victoria Street.

6. CHAIR: Alright, any further comment from the floor?

7. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That just goes to show you how much can be achieved when I’m not involved.

8. CHAIR: Alright, thank you very much indeed and thank you for that. That’s been very pleasing.

9. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It might be worth saying, Chairman, that we do appreciate that the public authorities do put a lot of work in. Their officers and elected members have earned a debt of gratitude from local residents, as well as from us,

because reaching an agreement is probably better than us trying to impose something having heard both sides of a discussion.

10. MS LIEVEN QC: I very much hope so, sir, and thank you for those words.

11. CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed. We’re now going to go to 184, London Borough of Camden, local authority generic case on construction noise, represented by Sharpe Pritchard.

London Borough of Camden

12. CHAIR: Welcome back, Mr Cameron. Is this similar? Are you going to be reading a statement as well?

13. MR CAMERON QC: It is. I won’t actually be reading a statement, but agreement has been reached. Sir, as you know, I appear not only on behalf of Camden, but all 14 of the local authorities that are known as the Local Authority Noise Consortium or LANC. A great deal of work has been put into reaching agreement, not only by the local authorities, but by HS2. I’ll just explain, if I can, the essence of the agreement.

14. I don’t know whether it’s possible to have up slide 1694(3), please. It’s not going to take very long, but maybe just a little bit longer than Ms Lieven. We’ve reached agreement on A1; we’ve reached agreement on 2 and 3, which are shown in green as well. We’ve reached agreement on A4.

15. If we turn on to the next page, please, which is number 4, you’ll see there that the local authorities took a slightly unusual step here and drafted what they called ‘a statement of expectations’. An assurance has been given that satisfies their requirements and I’ll just explain it very briefly.

16. The local authorities’ concern was that they have a power, under section 60 and 61 of the Control of Pollution Act, which arises at the construction stage. At that stage, it’s envisaged that the nominated undertaker will apply for consent and that is consent to the means of working at particular sites, and the local authority is able to impose conditions, subject to having regard to the best practicable means. What the local authorities were concerned about was that, at that stage, they may seek to impose conditions that the

nominated undertaker had found to be unexpected or they might found that, if they sought to impose certain conditions, they were met with the argument, ‘This isn’t best practicable means, because it’s going to delay the programme.’

17. What the statement of expectations does is to assist both parties, that is nominated undertaker and local authorities, and sets out the matters that local authorities would expect, where relevant and proportionate, to be addressed. That’s the basis of the agreement, and it’s hoped and expected that that will benefit both the local authorities and the nominated undertaker.

18. Can I turn to the next page, which is 5, 1694(5), please? Agreement has been reached on issues here. Some of these issues, such as better ventilation and provisions for noise insulation, were agreed in relation to the Camden petition and similar agreement has been reached. Now, you’ll notice here that part of the request was for an independent advisory service and an independent compensation panel. The second of those two is nor pursued. As far as the independent advisory service is concerned, no doubt you’ll be concerned about a proliferation of different services and bodies, but what’s envisaged here is that those that think that they might be entitled to temporary rehousing or noise insulation should have some independent body that they can go to. Otherwise, they’re going to the nominated undertaker and there’s likely to at least be a perception that they’re not going to get the information that they need, even though they may well do.

19. For the person affected, the resident in the flat where she thinks they might be affected, where do they go? They might go to the local authority, but local authorities aren’t necessarily equipped to deal with this, if you think of authorities up and down the route. What the Secretary of State has agreed is not to set up such a panel, but to consider it, and the authorities have agreed to engage with the Secretary of State in that process. Hopefully, we’ll reach agreement. If we don’t we might have to go back in the other house, but that’s where that’s got to.

20. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Mr Cameron, can you tell us why an independent compensation panel was not considered?

21. MR CAMERON QC: Not pursued?

22. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Yes, not pursued.

23. MR CAMERON QC: It was thought that, in relation to the two issues here, noise insulation and temporary rehousing, the mechanism of the complaints commissioner, which I think is now going to be called the construction commissioner, would be adequate. What was thought to be inadequate was access to advice, as to whether somebody would be entitled to temporary rehousing or noise insulation. That was seen to be the defect and the local authorities have been persuaded that the other systems in place, particularly the complaints or construction commissioner, would provide adequate protection.

24. Now, the next page, page 6, this is really a repeat of the request that was made to you on 4 November in relation to operational noise, but a similar request in relation to construction noise. We don’t call any evidence on that, but we leave that for you to consider.

25. Other operational noise matters have been dealt with, apart from if we can go to pages 83 and 84. 83 and 84 are reminders of issues that were left with you to determine, following the operational noise hearing. We’ve really put them in there to remind you that they’re on the list. They’re of concern to the local authorities and will require some guidance from you. That’s all I have to say, apart from being grateful to the Secretary of State for giving the necessary assurances. We haven’t got a letter as yet, because there are various changes that need to be made but, once we get that letter, no doubt it’ll be put on the website.

26. CHAIR: Okay, any comments, Mr Mould?

27. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just to say this, as Mr Cameron has said, we certainly have given an assurance to have a careful look at the case for an independent advisory service. That is something that we need to consider in detail, in conjunction with Camden on behalf of the other local authorities. The letter that is to be sent reflects that fact.

28. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much, gentlemen. We now move on to 904, London Transport Users Committee, known as London TravelWatch, Stephen Locke.

London Transport Users Committee

29. MR LOCKE: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for this opportunity. As you know from the details, I’m Stephen Locke, Chair of London TravelWatch, which is statutorily known as the London Transport Users Committee. On my right, I have my colleague Mr Tim Bellinger, who is our Director of Policy and Investigation.

30. I should say by way of opening that we’re unfamiliar with this kind of procedure. It’s been our first opportunity to get involved with a hybrid bill of this kind. It has indeed been a fascinating, if somewhat uneven, learning process.

31. By way of introduction, if I may, just a couple of words: I should make it clear that London TravelWatch was set up under the Greater London Authority Act (1999), and we have a statutory remit to represent and advocate the interests of all who travel in London. I was appointed Chair in 2011 and, at the same time, was appointed to the board of Transport Focus to represent London passengers at the national level.

32. We’ve considered this issue at our board meeting, at London TravelWatch, in February 2014, under my chairmanship, and we had at that time a very helpful presentation jointly from HS2 and Network Rail, and we discussed our organisation’s response. The outcome from that was a petition that your committee will have seen, which we submitted within the timescale.

33. We’re not objecting in principle to HS2, although we don’t actively take a view on the other side either, but we are concerned that a number of opportunities are not being taken to develop some important aspects of London’s transport infrastructure, and that these are opportunities that may not occur for many decades in the future. Indeed, some of the decisions made within the ambit of the Bill may close off some important options completely.

34. We have, since our petition went in, received a number of assurances from HS2, in the letter dated 7 November, which unfortunately we only received a week or so. We’ve made some initial consideration of that letter, but we’ve not been able to look in detail at all the proposed assurances in there. We will do so at the meeting of our board on 15 December. If there are outstanding issues, we will revert as quickly as we can. However, I will say that, at least at first sight, a lot of those assurances are helpful and

seem to deal with some of the concerns we’ve raised. There are just a number of points I’d like to highlight during the course of this meeting. Now, I don’t know if you want me to give those points now, to begin with, or whether you want to go into questions straight away.

35. CHAIR: No, continue with your presentation.

36. MR LOCKE: Shall I carry on? The first thing I’d like to mention is the closure provisions, which are in the Bill in clause 39, where it is proposed to disapply the statutory closure provisions. Somewhere piquantly in this particular case, at this stage, it only relates to the railway line from West Ruislip to Paddington, and that may seem a bit notional since there’s only one parliamentary train a day running on that. There’s often obviously not a direct concern to current passengers, but we are concerned that the closure of that line and the removal of the possibility for trains on that route will, first of all, make it difficult to retain driver knowledge over the route; will, second, reduce resilience in the event of problems with the Chiltern Line and with the routes into Paddington; and third, will reduce the scope for future development, should that be proved desirable. We think the closure provisions are actually quite important and quite material. We think that the proposal to disapply them is something that is injurious to passenger interest. Particularly, we think there should be the full set of criteria applied to that particular closure or to any other closures that follow in the wake of the HS2 project, and that the operator should then be under an obligation to consider those concerns.

37. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Could you put up P11608(2)?

38. MR LOCKE: That’s this. We have this morning received another letter from HS2, suggesting a further assurance in relation to this closure process, reading as follows. It’s quite short, so I can read it out. ‘The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to ensure that there is a single point of contact, who will engage with the London Transport Users Committee,’ that’s us, ‘in connection with matters arising from the exercise by the Secretary of State of the powers under clause 39 of the Bill, insofar as the affect railway networks, railway passenger services and stations in Greater London.’

39. There are two problems with that. Number one is that it simply talks about a

single point of contact; it does not talk about applying the criteria that we think should be applied in relation to closure processes. Second, it only talks about stations in Greater London, when actually our statutory remit covers the London travel area, which is quite a bit wider, and indeed includes quite a sizable stretch of the Chiltern Line. We’re not happy with the assurances we’ve been given in relation to the statutory closure provisions and we think, on that point at the very least, our petition should remain.

40. Now, if it’s okay for the Committee, I’ll just highlight very briefly the other concerns that we still have outstanding. These relate more to the substance of the proposals and the way in which they will affect passenger interests. There are four of them. Number one is the quality of the modelling of passenger numbers. In the wake of the completion of HS2, which we hope that, if it’s built, will be successful, it will lead to large increases in passenger numbers, particularly people using Euston. It will also lead to very large numbers of people interchanging between HS2 and Crossrail, HS2 and other Transport for London services and, to some extent, HS2 and Network Rail.

41. Now, we’re aware that some modelling has been done in that area and it’s reassuring to know that a number of scenarios have been considered. We know that, from past construction in the transport sector in London, demand can leap way ahead of any expectations, because people’s behaviour and indeed their patterns of live change very substantially, because they change where they live; they change where they work; they change their commuting journeys. A whole range of things quite radically affect passenger demand, and that’s certainly applied to initiatives such as the East London Line and eastern parts of the Transport for London area, so the modelling is a bit of a question mark.

42. The second area we’re still concerned about is accessibility. We have a remit to represent all passengers, including of course those with disabilities and carry heavy luggage, buggies and all those other things. A lot of work has been put in to ensure that there is accessibility between the HS2 part of the station and the various TfL and Crossrail services, and that also there will be good accessibility between HS2 and the Network Rail part of Euston Station. For the other leg of the triangle, that is between Network Rail and TfL services, nothing is being done. We think that’s a significant missed opportunity, because Euston is and will increasingly be a major interchange in

its own right.

43. The third substantive concern relates to the permeability of Euston station. Again, we’ve had some assurances on this account and most of those are helpful, but we think there is still a significant gap in relation to the permeability of Euston Station to the northeast, to the area around Phoenix Road, which I think is on diagram P1159(7) and (8) in the pack. Quite simply, this is a potential exit that allows an easy walking route to St Pancras International and King’s Cross. It was used during the Olympics to great effect and, so far, it has remained firmly shut and we think should be reopened, not least to make that easy-walking interchange between HS2 and HS1.

44. Last but not least of my substantive concerns – I shall then stop, if that’s alright – is the Old Oak Common interchanges. Again, a number of the assurances we’ve received in relation to Old Oak Common have been helpful, but the extent of the opportunity in Old Oak Common has not been fully grasped. I gasped when I heard that, actually, through Old Oak Common there are potentially no less than seven lines, running different kinds. It’s quite a remarkable confluence of routes and there will, at this stage, only be interchanges between some of those, in particular the London Overground routes on the West London Line and the North London Line will be left out of the picture. We think that that’s deeply regrettable. It will mean that the interchanges between those two lines and the remaining nexus of HS2, Great Western Railway Main Line and Crossrail, will be left out of that particular set of interchanges, and we think that that avenue is being prematurely and unnecessarily closed off.

45. Similarly, we are concerned that the potential for an interchange with the West Coast Main Line is being kicked into the long grass. That’s not ruled out and we’re assured that it is a possibility for the future. We think it will be much better on value for money and planning grounds to develop an integrated plan from the beginning, even if the implementation and the actual phasing of the project were left to a later date, which could, among other things, build in some learning for behaviour.

46. There we are; we’re concerned about the closure provisions and, on the substantive issues, we are still concerned about the quality of modelling of passenger numbers, about accessibility between the Network Rail part of the station and the TfL and Crossrail services, about permeability of Euston Station to the northeast and about

the opportunities for interchanges at Old Oak Common.

47. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr Locke. Very much to the point. Mr Mould.

48. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. If we can just put up slide P11608(2), just dealing with the question of closure, I think you’ve already heard Mr Strachan explain the purpose of clause 39 in answer to your previous petition. This slide summarises the position. It refers across to information paper B6, which gives a little more detail about the purpose and effect of clause 39, but essentially the point is that that clause disapplies the general arrangements in the railways legislation and it does so on the basis of the needs of this particular railway bill, which itself of course has been promoted as public legislation. It follows that the case for that clause and its intended purposes will have been considered by the House, as part of the parliamentary scrutiny of this particular bill.

49. The assurance that was given, if we can just up P12397(1), was the letter of the 7th of this month, today’s date, which was referred to briefly a moment ago. The purpose of that is to make clear that London TravelWatch will be contacted, that the Secretary of State will engage with them in relation to their interest, in relation to his intended exercise of those powers. They will be able to feed in, through that engagement, any points that they wish to raise with him, and he will then take them into account in deciding on the exercise of those powers, in the event that he needs to do so. That is to say to deploy those powers in practice.

50. It was said that the remit of London TravelWatch extends beyond railway networks, passenger stations and services in Greater London. I’ll ask those behind me just to review that assurance with that thought in mind and, if it’s appropriate to extend the geographical reach of that assurance, then we’ll issue an assurance that corrects that point and reissue that to the petitioner.

51. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Can I just ask you on that, Mr Mould? It seems to me from what you’ve just said that you’ll engage with the London Transport Users Committee, but you won’t necessarily have to take into account or even act on anything that they say.

52. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, that’s not right, with respect, Mr Clifton-Brown.

When a public body, when the Secretary of State, says he’ll engage with somebody, what that means is he’ll hear what they say and he’ll take it into account. He won’t necessarily agree with it and he won’t necessarily, as you put it, act on it, but he will certainly take it into account. No more can reasonably be expected by someone with a public body, who is considering the exercise of discretionary powers, such as clause 39. No more can reasonably be expected. The point of engagement is that this is an interest group, a stakeholder if you like, whose views ought to be taken into account, and engagement is the means whereby that is done. No matter is in fact required under the general legislation that is disapplied. There is an engagement process that is laid down, rather than anything more decisive, if you will. That is the appropriate level at which to pitch it.

53. ‘Engagement’ is a term that is used, as you know and as Members of the Committee know, plentifully across a whole range of assurances that we have given to individual petitioners and that we have given to the world at large, if you will, through information pages and so forth. Each and every time that word is used, it carries with it an obligation to listen to what is said and to take it into account. It is an article of public law that the public body that is doing the engaging must take account of the fruits of that engagement. It applies as much here as it does elsewhere. Thank you.

54. The other points that were raised—the modelling of the effect of HS2 services on the travelling public—the promoter will continue appropriately to review the modelling of the impact of HS2 on existing and future services. Indeed, AP3 is, in part, the result of the process of continuing to model the performance of the existing and the high-speed railway network on passenger behaviour, changes of people’s choices in terms of origin and destination, and so forth, so that process will continue. It must continue because the intention is to take all reasonable steps that can be taken to ensure that this railway, as and when it is built and starts to operate, delivers not only the optimal service on the new high-speed railway line, but enables the optimal delivery of services on the lines where capacity is released in order to improve the performance of the existing network.

55. That point is apparent, by way of example, from P11279(12) where, as you can see, in answering the evidence posed I think during the evidence of Professor McNaughton last Monday, on the 30th. Why are we changing to the AP3 design? You can see that the third of the key reasons given in answer to that question was to reduce

the impact on existing rail services, against the building of continuing growth, over 5% per annum, on longer-distance commuting services. Both during the construction of the phased AP3 scheme and once the first phase comes into operation, a continuing model-based assessment of the impact on passenger services will continue to be at the heart of the project.

56. The next point was accessibility. Accessibility is again a key element of the design and construction and operation of the HS2 railway. There is an explanation of the policy and the commitments given in relation to accessibility in information paper D5, which is entitled inclusive design. The particular point was made of an acknowledgement that the project is doing well, insofar as its own proposals are concerned, but there may be potential challenges in the interaction with the existing classic station at Euston. There the obligation remains on Network Rail, as the custodian of that station.

57. It’s not the intention of this bill, as you know, to seek directly to rebuild, to interfere with or to affect the operation of the existing station at Euston. What this bill seeks to do, through AP3, is to promote a scheme that can interact in a way in a way that is effective with the existing station, but also can facilitate the redesign, the rebuilding, the redevelopment, of the existing station, at an appropriate time when plans come forward under Network Rail’s aegis for that to take place. The framework is there for matters of inclusivity of design to be dealt with effectively but, in the meantime, it’s Network Rail, rather than the promoter of this bill, that bears the primary responsibility for accessibility within the existing station.

58. Then permeability between Euston Station and St Pancras and King’s Cross to the east, one of the assurances that you’ll recall was given to the London Borough of Camden, recorded in the very detailed assurances letter that was provided and is now in the public domain, on the council’s and the HS2 website; one of the assurances given in that letter was in relation to improving the passenger link between Euston, St Pancras and King’s Cross via Phoenix Road, so that is something that is already the subject of an assurance by the promoter to the London Borough.

59. In relation to Old Oak Common interchanges, again amongst the suite of assurances that were given to Transport for London and the Greater London Authority,

back at the end of June, in relation to Old Oak Common, are a number of assurances dealing with landing the Old Oak Common Station in a way that facilitates both existing and future interaction, and interlinks with existing and proposed overground services at that station, including the main line services, including Crossrail. Those assurances are already in the public domain. We’re already bound by those with the strategic transport authority for London.

60. As regards the prospect of a direct link between the West Coast Main Line and the Crossrail service and HS2 at Old Oak Common, as the petitioner rightly says, that is something that the Secretary of State has said is for continuing consideration, with a view to making an appropriate decision in future, as to how such a link might be achieved. I can’t say more about that now, because it’s not part of this bill. That is something that is for future consideration. I think I’ve covered the key points raised by the petitioners.

61. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I wonder if I can repeat the bit in The Mikado about the parliamentary train?

62. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The parliamentary train? Yes, we dealt with that.

63. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You haven’t got The Mikado bit, where I think it says, ‘The idiot who, in railway carriages / Scribbles on window-panes. / We only suffer / To ride on a buffer / On parliamentary trains.’

64. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, it’s the punishment that is dished out, is it not by the Mikado himself? It’s ‘prisoner pent’, but I can’t remember the words. I shan’t go any further; you’re far better at it than I am.

65. CHAIR: Brief final comments, Mr Locke?

66. MR LOCKE: Can I comment particularly on the clause 39 point and the closure provisions? It seems to me that, if we have something that effectively mirrors the Railway Act (2005), we should stick with it. Actually, the Railway Act does require a number of processes to be gone through before a service or a station can be closed, including an assessment of whether a closure meets the criteria set out in guidance and setting out a consultation procedure for that. I can’t see what’s wrong with doing that

here and I can’t see why there is a feeling that this process should be bypassed, thereby significantly bypassing the interests of a wide range of users’ groups, who may be quite directly and injuriously affected. I can see that it’s more convenient to have this particular clause in the Bill, but I don’t think that it necessarily meets the public interest.

67. On the modelling issue, I’m reassured to hear that there’s a wide range of scenarios being put together, but there are still concerns about the impacts of significant behaviour changes as a result of HS2. As I say, with lines like the East London Line, the impacts on passenger numbers has been completely disproportionate to anything that anyone modelled, because people simply change their behaviour and the way in which they ran their lives. The more there can be the building-in of resilience to actually cope with those numbers, then obviously the more welcome that will be.

68. One immediate concern comes for example from the reduction in the number of platforms, from 16 to 11 in the classic station in Euston. Now, we think that probably is manageable on current and currently foreseeable traffic volumes, but there is a concern that, were those to start to mushroom, the story may be very different.

69. On accessibility, I am reassured to hear that. I think we need to consider some of the points of detail, but that is helpful.

70. On permeability, I wasn’t aware that an assurance has been given to Camden on the improvement of a link through to Phoenix Road but, if that is the case, then that does meet our concern. If it isn’t, then it doesn’t.

71. Last but not least on Old Oak Common, I think my colleague Mr Bellinger has a comment.

72. MR BELLINGER: We know about the proposals that TfL agreed with the promoter. However, they do involve two separate stations, one for the North London Line and one for the West London Line. The interchange with HS2 and with Great Western Main Line will be effectively out of the station and people will have to make their way through the street to the other station.

73. When we were originally considering this proposal, the proposal was for a diversion of the West London Line with a station that was very much closer to the Old

Oak Common complex, which would have been a joint station with the North London Line. Now, I understand that that proposal has been withdrawn because of environmental concerns in the Wormwood Scrubs area but, in our view, that is not better for passengers, because it does mean that the distance between the stations where you’d interchange from the West London Line and the North London Line to the new station would be much greater and they would not be on one site.

74. CHAIR: Do you want to make any further comment on that, Mr Mould?

75. MR MOULD QC (DfT): On that last point, those stations of course are the responsibility of the strategic transport authority, and that’s why I mentioned the assurances we’ve given to that authority. What we have done is sought to make a provision that is a passive provision, if you will, which is acceptable to that body, with a view to enabling future interaction between the HS2 station and those local and regional services.

76. MR LOCKE: I just think it’s important to underline for the Committee how incredibly important Old Oak Common could be for London’s transport network. If, as is currently plans, there will be five lines in that area that means a total of 20 possible interchanges between one line and another. If it’s six, then there’ll be 30 and, if it’s seven, 35. The potential scale of this new transport development is quite colossal and it does provide an enormous opportunity.

77. CHAIR: We appreciate that as well. Thank you very much, Mr Locke and your colleagues. Before we finish, I have the Committee’s decision on Mr Bodman, AP3 locus standi. Mr Bodman is a Northamptonshire resident and Euston rail user, who’s concerned about service levels from Northampton to London during the construction of HS2. However legitimate these concerns are, they are a matter for the rail user population at large and there is no special effect on Mr Bodman, over and above that population. He does not have locus before this Committee. Order, order.