If you have just got here and have no idea what this is all about, you can click this link for a detailed explanation. Below is the quick version.
The quick version is that it is being said the Green Party has changed position to support HS2. It hasn’t. That was certainly the intention from some, but at the conference the original motion was amended. Amendment 1 deleted the bit that said “The Green Party calls for the government to fund and build HS2 including the entire Eastern leg to Leeds”. That was the bit which would have changed GPEW policy to one of support for HS2, but it was deleted and in went a series of specific contingent conditions in line with “Green Values” which the delivery of HS2 has to align to (see below) . It doesn’t and handily, a Panorama investigation has come along just at the right time to provide evidence against the fourth criteria. Given this, the press statements saying GPEW has changed position to one to support HS2 are just simply wrong. Click here for the text of the motion as amended.
So we would like you to take this action sign this letter. To do that please copy the text below with you name and that of your local party (even if you have resigned the party – and you have done that please do include that!) to these addresses: leader@greenparty.org.uk; office@greenparty.org.uk; press@greenparty.org.uk; greensagainsths2@gmail.com .
Thank you.
End the misrepresentation of conference policy on HS2.
Following the passing of Motion E01”Green Rail Strategy for the Midlands and the North”, press releases have been issued by the GPEW and posts published on websites and social media, which include quotes from the leadership stating that the Green Party has changed position on HS2, to one of support for the project.
This is not the case. Amendment 1 deleted the text which would have changed policy: “The Green Party calls for the government to fund and build HS2 including the entire Eastern leg to Leeds”. Motion E01 as amended now sets down four contingent conditions in line with Green values which Green Party support for HS2 is dependent upon. These conditions have not been met, and there is no evidence they have ever been assessed. It also appears to be the case that there are no understood procedures for how these contingent conditions would be assessed in the future.
The relevant text in the motion reads:
“The Party’s support for high speed rail in practice is nonetheless contingent on its delivery aligning with Green values. Specifically, these values will necessitate:
· Proper timely data releases relating to the ongoing impacts of HS2, using up to date biodiversity metrics and not excluding any habitats;
· Limiting adverse impacts on biodiversity and bioabundance, and, where adverse impacts are unavoidable, securing a 10% biodiversity net gain within the development site;
· Independent monitoring of impacts and remediation schemes; and
· Proper compensation for those affected by the scheme’s construction.”,
As many of the speakers for the motion, and the subsequent press statements have pointed out, delivery of the high speed rail project HS2 is in process and there is no evidence that this delivery aligns with Green values and the specifics listed. To state at this point in time that the Green Party supports HS2 is to state that HS2 is being delivered in line with Green values, despite these tests not having been passed.
This is not the case. As such it is clear that the statements that the Green Party has changed position to support HS2 is erroneous and due to a misinterpretation of the policy which was actually passed at conference.
As such, the Green Party leadership and press office must retract these previous statements and clarify to all parties that the Green Party has not changed position to support HS2, but has simply laid down the contingent conditions on which support for HS2 is dependent. As these are contingent conditions, the Green Party clearly remains opposed to HS2 until these contingent conditions are met. To say otherwise at this point in time would be a misrepresentation of the policy passed at conference.
Up until now, it is likely that this misrepresentation of the actual policy which was passed has been accidental, and due to an incorrect interpretation of how Amendment 1 impacted the substantive of the motion. Now this error has been pointed out, to continue to make such statements would be a deliberate act to incorrectly interpret the policy as set down by Conference. This would not align with Green values and would damage the reputation and credibility of the Party.
Given that there have already been a number of resignations from the Party of members and councillors due to the misrepresentation of the policy as was passed, this action must be taken immediately.
Greens Against HS2 