Dear Department for Transport,

In January 2012 the government's plans for the HS2 route involved the rebuilding of Euston station.

Simon Burns said in parliament on 14 March 2013 that DfT was working closely with HS2 on the costs of the Euston rebuild. HC Deb, 14 March 2013, c281W and was equivocal about costs.

HS2 announced on 19 April 2013 that its costs for the rebuild of Euston station had gone over budget and it was submitting revised plans.

see

http://www.hs2.org.uk/press/euston-stati...

This is a major blow for local communities and there is a strong public interest in understanding how HS2 arrived at this decision. Just as there was much interest locally in the cost over-runs at Kings Cross.

DfT is covered by FOI but HS2 is not. However all HS2 correspondence with DfT is caught by FOI.

I should be grateful for copies of all correspondence, meeting notes, spread sheets and other information exchanged between DfT and HS2 concerning plans for Euston station during the period 1 March 2013 and 22 April 2013.

Please note, should you be considering citing commercial confidentiality as a reason not to provide this information the Information Commissioner has repeatedly stressed that such concerns are not material in matters of this sort. And HS2 is a monopoly with no competitors so cannot suffer commercial disadvantage.

My preferred format to receive this information is electronic through this web service. If you have any queries that might make it easier to answer my request please do not hesitate to contact me. If you wish to respond in parts then please feel free to do so.

Yours faithfully,

william perrin

Dear Patrick Bateson,

Thank you for your communication of 24 May. You cited a number of areas where you sought to apply a public interest test. Dealing with each of these in turn:

Section 22: information intended for future publication

I am not aware that DfT is in the habit of routine publication of emails and communications with organisations such as HS2. Could you please demonstrate where you publish such material? The application of this exemption is not plausible.

Section 35: formulation of government policy

As a former civil servant I am well aware of how government policy is formulated. HS2 should not be formulating government policy and nor should you be offering to them advice to Ministers that falls under the narrow area that qualifies under this exemption. The application of this exemption is not plausible.

Section 41: information provided in confidence

Could you please publish the confidentiality agreement that DfT has entered into with HS2 that was in force at the time to which my request refers. My understanding is that the information commissioner views such agreements in a dim light as they can subvert the principle of FOI.

Section 43: commercial interests

See my comments in my original request about commercial interests. HS2 is a monopoly and in procurement an monopsonist (a single buyer). Where no competitive forces are acting, transparency around costs can only increase economic efficiency. The information commissioner has not overall upheld attempts to apply commercial confidentiality to to incredibly detailed publication of local and national government spending with companies and i doubt very much whether he would do so here.

The public interest

The building of large mainline railway stations in Britain in the last ten years has been expensive. St Pancras cost £750million, King Cross c£450m. Kings Cross in particular was notoriously over budget. These are huge sums of public money at a time of austerity. It is of great public interest to understand how DfT and HS2 managed to agree between them an elaborate expensive station (the 2011/12 spec) and then have that estimate fall apart in Spring 2013.

Correspondence for the period requested covers the time between the Minister elliptically defending the earlier spec. to Parliament and that spec. collapsing into a different project to great local dismay and confusion. If local people, the public and parliament can see this correspondence then the public interest will be well served.

My foi requests concerning Kings Cross station, which DfT granted to its credit revealed for the first time the extent of the overspend there. I also corresponded with the Permanent Secretary about issues raised in my earlier FOIs, in particular some panglossian briefing of Ministers.

I should be deeply dismayed if this current request is not met in full.

Yours sincerely,

william perrin