Home / Sources / Select Committees / Public Administration and Con… / Follow-up to PHSO report on HS2
Select committee inquiry

Follow-up to PHSO report on HS2

Closed

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee · Opened 20 January 2016 · Closed 25 October 2017

1 recommendation · 6 conclusions
Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

What the inquiry looked at

“Report: Follow up to PHSO Report of an investigation into a complaint about HS2 Ltd Report: Follow up to PHSO Report of an investigation into a complaint about HS2 Ltd (PDF 395KB) Government Response: Follow up to PHSO Report of an investigation into a complaint about HS2 Ltd Government Response: Follow up to PHSO Report of an investigation into a complaint about HS2 Ltd (PDF 133 KB) The report says that what should have been consultation events were in fact turned into public relations exercises, and the information that was made available to the public was either too generic to be of use or was inconsistent. The process was treated as a one way 'box-ticking' exercise by HS2 Ltd, with no genuine two-way engagement. In future, members of the public dealing with HS2 Ltd should never have to go through the same experiences as those whose homes and communities were affected by Phase One.”

The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.

What it found

In the committee's words, from the summary of 6th Report - Follow up to PHSO Report of an investigation into a complaint about HS2 Ltd ↗

In November 2015, the PHSO published its Report of the results of an investigation into a complaint about High Speed 2 Ltd (HS2 Ltd). The report dealt with a group of six families whose small community faced break-up under Government plans for the new high speed rail network. The report identified a series of failings in communication and engagement and in complaints handling which amounted to “maladministration” in the opinion of the Ombudsman.

In response to the Ombudsman’s report, HS2 Ltd has apologised and has since made a number of payments to those affected totalling £10,500. Some improvements have been made to how the organisation interacts with the public, and commitments were made, both by the Chief Executive of HS2 Ltd and by the Minister of State for Transport, to take a personal interest in the matter.

However, having received a large body of evidence that is highly critical of HS2 Ltd, we remain unconvinced that the necessary fundamental changes have taken place. The continuing existence of a culture of defensive communication and misinformation within a public body, responsible for the delivery of such a large and highly controversial project, is not acceptable. We urge those in senior positions to recognise that this is a matter of primary importance. Unless those responsible for delivering HS2 understand that first and foremost they serve the public, and take action to reflect this, then they will continue to be vulnerable to the criticism that they have disregard for members of the public who are impacted by this large-scale infrastructure project.

What the government said

The government responded on 15 June 2016.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.

The Government states that it "takes its strategic oversight role very seriously" in response to the Committee's recommendation, and says HS2 Ltd is preparing its response to the Bynoe report.

  • The Government has requested that HS2 Ltd present its plans to ministers "to ensure that they are sufficiently robust" to deal with the issues identified by the PHSO and Bynoe reports.
  • The Government says it is "considering how we can strengthen" community engagement provisions in the Development Agreement with HS2 Ltd. No timescale is stated.
  • The Government says ministers and officials hear directly from the HS2 Residents' Commissioner and residents, and pass those issues to HS2 Ltd to ensure "a joined-up approach".
  • HS2 Ltd says it "fully accept[s] there is room for improvement" in working with communities and handling complaints, and says it is recruiting a Director of Community Relations reporting to the Chief Executive.

Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error

How the inquiry ran

Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 20 January 2016 to its close on 25 October 2017.

  1. Oral evidence 23 Feb 2016
  2. Report 23 Mar 2016
  3. Government response 15 Jun 2016

What it recommended 1 recommendation · 6 conclusions

1The PHSO’s report exposed fundamental cultural problems with the way that HS2 Ltd communicates with...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The PHSO’s report exposed fundamental cultural problems with the way that HS2 Ltd communicates with affected residents, and the way that it handles complaints subsequently made by those residents. We welcome the steps taken by HS2 Ltd since the period covered by that report, and the apparent willingness shown by the Chief Executive to take HS2 Ltd’s responsibilities to the public seriously. However, there is still much work to be done. Fine words must be backed up by strong and decisive action. Until HS2 Ltd treats its duty to the public as a matter of primary importance, the perception, at least, will persist that HS2 Ltd has disregard for the public.
2The rest of this report therefore outlines what further action is required to deliver a...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The rest of this report therefore outlines what further action is required to deliver a much needed paradigm shift in culture and attitudes, in order to improve how HS2 Ltd communicates and engages with residents, and how it deals with their complaints.
3We do not believe that HS2 Ltd took its duty to openly and transparently communicate...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We do not believe that HS2 Ltd took its duty to openly and transparently communicate and engage with the public sufficiently seriously. Instead it turned what should have been consultation events into public relations exercises, and the information that was made available to the public was either too generic to be of use, or was inconsistent. In future, members of the public dealing with HS2 Ltd should never have to go through what those whose homes and communities have been affected by Phase One have experienced.
4We welcome the actions taken since the publication of the Residents’ Charter in January 2015...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We welcome the actions taken since the publication of the Residents’ Charter in January 2015 and note that HS2 Ltd believes that it has addressed the most pressing concerns. The recruitment of 11 stakeholder communication roles is a positive development. However, we reject the claim that the main focus of the ongoing criticism is about the pace of change alone. The depth and extent of criticism expressed in the vast majority of the evidence that we received highlights the need for a fundamental shift in how HS2 Ltd communicates and engages with the public. We have seen no evidence to suggest that this step change has taken place. The publication of Ian Bynoe’s independent review will provide a further opportunity for HS2 Ltd to ask itself some difficult questions and we both hope and expect that the Chief Executive will make good on his commitment to accept its recommendations. The DfT must take its strategic oversight role seriously, and not uncritically accept HS2 Ltd’s proposals.
5Whilst we do not seek a return to the Phase One community forums, we are...
Recommended (the committee's words)
Whilst we do not seek a return to the Phase One community forums, we are concerned that HS2 Ltd has failed to identify what we believe to be the root cause of the forums’ failings: namely that the process was treated as a one way ‘box-ticking’ exercise by HS2 Ltd, with no genuine two-way engagement. Whilst we are broadly supportive of any engagement activity which offers the public a genuine opportunity to discuss and contribute to the process, unless there is a change in approach from 18 Follow up to PHSO Report of an investigation into a complaint about HS2 Ltd ‘transmit’ to ‘receive’ on HS2 Ltd’s part, then these new proposals will also fail. In particular we urge HS2 Ltd to address its “defensive” style of communication and to embrace openness and transparency.
6We welcome the improvements made by HS2 Ltd to its complaints handling process since the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We welcome the improvements made by HS2 Ltd to its complaints handling process since the publication of the PHSO report. Steps such as the introduction of named Case Officers and the appointment of a Public Response Manager should result in a better service for members of the public. We also applaud the personal commitments given by the Chief Executive and by the Minister to play an active role in complaints handling. However, this is not a substitute for the institutionalising of genuine experiential learning nor for the introduction of mandatory complaints handling training for all customer-facing staff.
7We cannot over-state the importance for HS2 Ltd of developing a strong customer focus on...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We cannot over-state the importance for HS2 Ltd of developing a strong customer focus on the needs of those whose homes and communities are seriously affected by what remains a highly controversial project. There is scope for the Residents’ Commissioner to have greater oversight of the complaints handling process given the salient importance of this to public perceptions of how HS2 Ltd communicates with the public at large. We expect HS2 Ltd to prioritise its response to Mr Bynoe’s forthcoming recommendations on communication and engagement and on complaint handling. This is a matter of primary importance for HS2 Ltd and must be treated as such.

Evidence

Oral evidence sessions 1