Dear High Speed Two (HS2) Limited,

I am writing to you under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Please note this request has several parts.

I am requesting the following information:

• Please can I receive explanation as to why 'HS2 Ltd does not generate income or profit from the sale of wood materials [resulting from vegetation clearance on HS2 land]'?
For example, is there legislation, governance restriction or policy that prohibits profit being made by HS2 from timber felled on HS2 land?
If so, what are these restrictions or policies and what are the reasons for them?
Can I please receive copy of all relevant documentation. 

• Secondly, the Environmental Sustainability Progress Report 2022 states that 'In many cases where it [felled timber] could not be reused beneficially, it was used as biomass to produce energy'. [https://tinyurl.com/y3dnwyup]
I would like to know why sending HS2 waste timber to biomass to produce energy is not defined as a 'beneficial reuse of timber' by HS2?

• Lastly, which stakeholders/contractors or subcontractors in the vegetation clearance supply chain make income from HS2 waste timber sent to produce biomass energy?
Receiving the name of the stakeholder company in response to this request is preferable but please do state the function of the company, or SME, if contracted company names are unable to be disclosed. For example, 'sub contracted vegetation removal specialists' or 'Enabling works contractor' etc. will suffice.

This is important information concerning HS2's circular economy principles and support of supply chain SMEs in the transition to Net Zero and I'd be grateful to recieve response, redacted where necessary, of course.

I would like to recieve information electronically, ideally in the form of PDF documents.
In accordance with Regulation 9 please can you provide any advice and assistance that may help my request to be more effective? If my request is too general please provide advice and assistance as to how it can be refined.

I look forward to your response within 20 working days, as stipulated by Regulation 5.
If you have any queries please don’t hesitate to contact me via email.

Thank you in advance,

Yours faithfully,

M Russell

Dear FOI Request,

I thank your information officers for the detail of their response to my request for Environmental Information and for responding on the deadline specified.

I look forward to reading and reviewing the information provided.

Yours Sincerely,

M Russell

Dear FOI Request,

My thanks for your detailed repsonse to FOI-23-4980.
I write seeking to clarify and challenge the basis of exemption 12(4)a being applied in response to point 5 of the combined FOI.

1) I would like to ascertain whether 'held/hold' was applied broadly enough and according to the guidance of the ICO and definitions of the EIR 2004.

As specified under EIR Regulation 3(2), the word 'held/hold' must be interpreted broadly and relates to information that is either '(b) held by another person on behalf of the authority' or '(a) is in the authority's possession and has been produced or received by the authority'.
Responses to an EIR may include information held by contracted, or subcontracted, companies on behalf of a public authority. It is possible that the vegetation removal specialists and Tier 1 contractors to which you earlier refer, may be considered to 'hold' the information requested according to this defintion. HS2 Ltd would be required to find and disclose relevant information in this case.

Please may it be clarified whether this 'broad' definition of 'held/hold' was applied when seeking exemption 12(4)a in response to point 5 of combined request FOI-23-4980?

2) Furthermore, taking Regulation 2(2) into account, Tier 1 contractors and vegetation removal specialist subcontractors may be answerable to the EIR 2004 and required to disclose information they hold because they exercise 'i) public responsibilities relating to the environment' and are 'iii) providing public services relating to the environment'.

Did point 5 of HS2 Ltd's response to FOI-23-4980 assess whether contractors/subcontractors may be answerable to the EIR according to Regulation 2(2)? HS2 would be required to find and disclose requested information in light of this.

3) Contracts between HS2 and Tier 1 contractors are enabled by the 'special legal powers' of Hybrid bill legislation and concern works for a public infrastructure project overseen by a public authority. An ICO tribunal found that bodies are answerable to the EIR if there are special legal powers in place that enable them to carry out their public functions.

For example, according to 'Appendix B - Maximising beneficial reuse of timber during site clearance' received in response to FOI-23-4980, 'all trees within the boundary of the HS2 site, as identified in the contractor's contract, are covered by a Forestry Act exemption through the provisions within the hybrid Bill for the HS2 project'. Here, the hybrid bill grants contractors (and ultimately subcontractors) exemption from applying for standard licenses prior to vegetation clearance. It may be considered that their work is enabled by these 'special legal powers' which other private companies do not possess.

In their response to FOI-23-4980, did HS2 consider that contractors and sub contractors may be answerable to the EIR given that the hybrid bill enables their work via exemption from normal legal procedure?

I would like a review of exemption 12(4)a being applied in response to point 5 of FOI-23-4980, in light of the points raised above.

In accordance with Regulation 9, please can you offer advice and assistance on ways in which it may be possible to receive the information requested?

My extended thanks for your time,
Yours sincerely,

M Russell