Mr (Aylesbury) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if
he will make a statement on the Government’s review of HS2.
The Secretary of State for Transport ()
This is my first time at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State
for Transport and I welcome the opportunity to update the House
on HS2.
There is no future in obscuring the cost benefits or timetable of
HS2, so on 21 August I announced an independent cross-party
review, led by Douglas Oakervee, of whether and how HS2 should or
should not proceed. The review will consider the project’s
affordability, deliverability, benefits, scope and phasing,
including its relationship with Northern Powerhouse Rail. The
chair will be supported by a deputy chair, , and a panel of experts from
business, academia and transport to ensure that its assessment
programme is independent, thorough and objective. Some of the
individuals on the panel have been passionate advocates and
others have been vocal critics of the project, but they will
provide input to and be consulted on the report’s conclusions.
The review is under way and will report to me on time this
autumn. I will discuss its findings with the Prime Minister and
the Chancellor, and its recommendations will help to inform our
decisions on the next step or otherwise for this project.
Colleagues will be aware that on our first day back, 3 September,
I placed in the House advice that I received over the summer from
the recently appointed chairman of HS2 Ltd, Allan Cook, on the
cost and deliverability of the current scheme. He has said that
he does not believe that the current scheme can be delivered
within the budget of £55.7 billion, set at 2015 prices. He
estimates that it requires a total budget, including contingency,
in the range of £72 billion to £78 billion, again set at 2015
prices. The chairman does not believe that the current schedule
of 2026 will be met for the initial services of phase 1. He does
not think that that is realistic.
In line with lessons from other large major transport
infrastructure projects, the chairman’s advice proposes a range
of start dates rather than a specific one. He recommends 2028-31
for phase 1, starting with initial services between London Old
Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street, followed by services to
and from London Euston later. He expects phase 2b—the full
high-speed line to Manchester and Leeds—to be open between 2035
and 2040.
The chairman is also of the view that the benefits of the current
scheme are substantially undervalued. All those matters will now
be considered by Douglas Oakervee within the scope of Oakervee
review.
When I announced the independent review into HS2, I said that I
want Doug Oakervee and his panel to assess independently the
findings and other available existing evidence. The review will
provide recommendations on whether and how we proceed.
I wish to make one further, wider point. Everyone in the House
knows that we must invest in modern infrastructure to ensure the
future prosperity of our nation. However, it is right that we
subject every single project to the most rigorous scrutiny
possible. If we are truly to maximise every opportunity, this
must always be done with an open mind and a clean sheet of paper.
Mr Lidington
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his
new responsibilities and welcome the review that the Government
have set up.
I have three questions for my right hon. Friend. First, in view
of this week’s revelation that HS2 is overrunning both its budget
and its schedule—something that many of us have been predicting
for a long time but that has been systematically denied for years
by HS2 Ltd and by his Department—what assurance can my right hon.
Friend give about the transparency of both the review that has
been commissioned and the Government’s formal response to it?
Secondly, my right hon. Friend will know that enabling works for
HS2 are still being carried out along phase 1 of the route.
Ancient woodlands are being felled. Productive farmland is being
occupied and used by HS2 Ltd. Public money is being spent on
these works even though, as my right hon. Friend says, the review
may lead to a recommendation to cancel or significantly change
the project altogether. Will the Secretary of State now accept
that those works are prejudicial to the outcome of the review
that he has established and order that they cease?
Thirdly, I have a queue of constituents whose land has been taken
by HS2 Ltd for preparatory works, but who have still to receive
the payments that were formally agreed with HS2 Ltd. The
Government have rightly committed to crack down on late payment.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that HS2 Ltd should be setting an
example in this regard, not acting as a laggard? As he, as
Secretary of State, is the sole shareholder in HS2 Ltd, will he
now take responsibility for insisting that HS2 Ltd puts this
injustice right immediately?
First, on the budget and the schedule, it is exactly as I said in
my opening statement: I completely agree with my right hon.
Friend that there is no future in trying to obscure costs or in
being unclear. It is the case that in a massive, developing
infrastructure project—Europe’s biggest—costs just are not known.
They are speculated about and then start to firm up, in this
case, literally as we start to dig into the ground. I can see how
over a period of time things move. None the less, I take the view
that as soon as I have the information, I will inform the
House—as soon as I got that Cook report and the House returned, I
stuck it straight into the Library. I assure my right hon. Friend
that I will continue to do exactly that going forward.
Secondly, it might be helpful to colleagues to know that I have
asked for Douglas Oakervee to meet Members of Parliament. He will
be in Committee Room 2A on Monday 9 September, between 3.30 pm
and 5 pm. That is an opportunity for any colleagues to go and see
him. Colleagues can make their own arrangements with him
separately, and I will inform the House of that.
Thirdly, on the enabling works, we are in a position where I have
to make a go/no-go decision in December. I know that this will
not a delight my right hon. Friend, but it seemed to me that if
we did not continue to make preparatory works, I would not even
be in the position to make a go/no-go decision. I am sorry to
disappoint my right hon. Friend, but that is the current
position. We can then take a decision.
I share my right hon. Friend’s concern and anxiety about
compulsory purchase order payments. When people’s lives,
livelihoods and homes are potentially going to be ripped apart by
a project that is supposedly for the wider good, it is right that
the state compensates them promptly and efficiently. I would be
most grateful to see more details of the cases he mentioned. I
have already had one across my desk, which I have sorted out, and
I would like to see others. There is no excuse for a CPO for
which people are not paid.
(Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I too congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment and
welcome him to his place. He comes into post at a time of crisis
for the country, but at an absolutely critical moment for HS2.
I gently remind the Secretary of State that we did ask for
regular reports and recommended a peer review when phase 2a was
before the House some weeks ago. I am sorry that he was not able
to vote for that—or, indeed, that the Prime Minister was not able
to express a view at all.
The Secretary of State mentioned that the review that is under
way is a cross-party one, but I gently point out that there has
been no consultation whatever with me. If it is to be genuinely
cross-party, perhaps he might want to take up that invitation.
We have consistently been told by the Secretary of State’s
predecessor and the then ministerial team that the 2015 figure of
£55.7 billion for the entire project was the full cost of HS2 and
that there was no reason to change it. It is hard to conclude
anything other than that it has been plain and obvious for some
considerable time that this was not accurate. Will the Transport
Secretary tell us when his predecessor was told that the figure
of £55.7 billion was not accurate or sustainable, and when he was
first told that the timetable for delivery could not be adhered
to?
Is this not yet more evidence that this Government have totally
failed to exercise any control over the project—not just over
costs, but with regard to redundancy payments and key
appointments that transpired to be unsustainable? In addition,
when the contracts for phase 1 were being granted, despite hedge
fund managers making a packet out of the inevitable demise of
Carillion, this Tory Government crashed on regardless, awarding
the doomed organisation a valuable HS2 contract.
It is beyond doubt that the Government have been totally
incompetent and reckless, but, worse than that, there hangs over
this Government the unpleasant smell that Parliament may have
been misled—however unwittingly—given that it is stark staringly
obvious that when the Minister responsible for HS2 stood at the
Dispatch Box a matter of weeks ago to tell the House that there
was only one figure and one figure alone for HS2 that assertion
was completely and totally inaccurate. If there is going to be
delay, what assurances can the Secretary of State give to the
9,000 people currently employed by HS2?
This Government continue to be characterised by a lack of
transparency. I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks that he
intends to put that right, but it still remains, as does a lack
of candour. Once we can be assured that there is no prospect of
the Government reneging on the legislation to avoid a no-deal
Brexit, Labour relishes the prospect of a general election to
turf them out.
On regular reports, I will come back to the House as many times
as it is prepared to hear about this matter, and I will continue
to update Members in every possible way. It might be helpful if I
were to make the introduction—if the hon. Gentleman has not
already had it—to Doug Oakervee; perhaps I could organise for the
hon. Gentleman to meet him separately. Of course, there are
cross-party members on the review panel and it is genuinely full
of sceptics. I think people were surprised when we launched a
review of this project that had such a broad, cross-party view.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that prices have changed
over time. I seem to recall that this was originally a project by
the previous Labour Government, and that when it was conceived
the whole thing was going to cost about £13 billion. One of the
issues that we have, which is a wider issue than just HS2, is
that these things start off being fixed at a price of a
particular period of time—the figure of £55.7 billion was about
2015 prices—and that does not actually allow for inflation. We
therefore end up quoting prices that are just out of date. On
that basis, every project will always be said to have overrun on
cost, although of course the benefits probably improve as well.
We have to find better ways of doing all this.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the first time that I
received advice on this matter was Allan Cook’s final report on 1
August, and that is the report that I published. Finally, I
undertake to ensure that we return to the House with every update
that we have, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to be involved
in the Oakervee review.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
As colleagues will be aware, there is pressure on time today,
because there are several further pieces of business to follow,
but equally and understandably there is intense interest in this
monumental mess and I know that the Secretary of State is very
keen, to his credit, to answer questions, so I shall do my best,
as always, to accommodate the understandable interest of
colleagues.
Dame (Chesham and Amersham)
(Con)
Mr Speaker, I was just about to say that there are Members
affected by this project who do not have a voice, and I was going
to include you, but clearly that is not the case. Of course,
there is also my right hon. Friend the Member for South
Northamptonshire (), who has always joined me
in the fight against HS2.
In welcoming the Secretary of State to his position, may I also
welcome my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the
Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington)? It is so good to hear his
voice raised in this Chamber against this dreadful project, and I
endorse everything he said. It applies to my constituency as
well.
The Secretary of State also needs to look at the national rail
travel survey, on which one of the raisons d’être for this
project is based, but which has not been updated since 2010. In
answers to me, the Department does not appear to know how much it
would cost to update it. That, coupled with the fact that we are
still not allowed to see the passenger forecasting documentation,
means that transparency is far from the watchword of HS2. Pages
right the way through the chairman’s stocktake have been
redacted. Transparency is not the order of the day.
The Secretary of State should grasp with both hands this
opportunity to review the project entirely and review the
nationwide transport and communication policy. I urge him to take
a deep breath and carry out a comprehensive assessment across
car, bus, train and air, as well as new technologies such as 5G
and broadband, because it is essential that we look at the
technological advances before we let this project go any further.
As the carriages being built for Crossrail pile up in Worksop
because we cannot get that project right, let us draw a deep
breath, cancel this project, start again and get a decent
comprehensive transport policy.
I know that Douglas Oakervee will have been listening to my right
hon. Friend’s words with great interest and will no doubt take
into account the national rail travel survey information. She
will of course meet him as well. I will just reflect on her final
point—because of course Douglas Oakervee is looking at all
this—about all forms of travel across the country. I entirely
agree with her. Having ordered it two years ago, I recently got
an electric car. It finally arrived a couple of weeks ago. It is
clear that transport is changing in this country and that we have
to take a more holistic view of it. Rail is one part, but there
is much else to consider.
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
(SNP)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. He
must be so thankful to have inherited another failing Grayling
legacy.
We know that the increased costs and delays have been covered up
since 2016 and denied at the Dispatch Box, so, while I welcome
the review, should there not be an inquiry into this hiding of
key information from the House? While I welcome the review, I
find it strange that about a third of the document that sets out
its terms has been redacted. Can he explain why?
What changes will be made to the cost-benefit criteria, and why?
While the Secretary of State said that many of the benefits of
the scheme were previously underestimated, I would remind him
that the business case rested on the assumption that time
business people spent travelling by train should be treated as
downtime, meaning that shorter train journeys were treated as
increasing productive time, when clearly that is not the case now
that we have wi-fi on the go. Will he confirm that that aspect of
the business case will not be over-egged?
The current proposals also mean that journeys north of Crewe to
Scotland will be slower than the existing Virgin service. Will
the review look at that and perhaps a different type of rolling
stock? If it does, what will that mean for the existing rolling
stock and ongoing procurement? What further reviews and
cost-benefit analyses will be done of track design that could
mean slower high-speed trains but reduced costs? What is the
contractual status of the recent contract awards to First
Trenitalia, given that the Government might now be doing a full
stock decision? What would that mean for that contract?
What is the committed spend, to date, in the Barnett allocations
to Scotland, and what will happen going forward? We were promised
at the Dispatch Box that on day one of the high-speed trains
operating they would go all the way to Scotland, and that is now
not the case. Will the Secretary of State answer those questions
and, if not, please put his responses in writing?
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I write to him on
some of that, rather than detain the House on all of it. He is
absolutely right about the Allan Cook report. I should have
mentioned that in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for
Chesham and Amersham (Dame ). I am unhappy about having
any of that report redacted. I have read the rest of it. It is
not hugely exciting. I pushed back on that with the Department,
and apparently it is just that the lawyers are saying that it is
commercially confidential stuff that I cannot force to be
released. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would
be much better if we could read every single page, but that is
the law. [Interruption.] I do not disagree—it is just that
lawyers will not allow it to happen.
On downtime when travelling, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely
right. Lots of people work very productively when travelling. It
is my favourite time to work uninterrupted. I can assure him that
Doug Oakervee will look at that. Allan Cook referred to some of
the build benefits where there could be new industry, homes and
so on in an area where a line runs.
The last point I will comment on—I will write to the hon.
Gentleman about the rest—is the implications for the west coast
partnership. That is very important. Under the contract, I think
in 2026—it would be in line with if HS2 went ahead—the company
would become a shadow operator, so it is built into that contract
if the thing goes ahead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a further urgent question after this and there
are then three ministerial statements before we get to the
Backbench business. Therefore, there is a premium upon brevity
from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike. For the avoidance of
doubt, what I am looking for from colleagues is not dilation and
not preamble but single-sentence questions, which will be
brilliantly exemplified, I feel sure, by the right hon. Member
for Derbyshire Dales (Sir ).
Sir (Derbyshire Dales)
(Con)
Thank you for that challenge, Mr Speaker. May I first welcome my
right hon. Friend to his position?
The easiest thing for the Government to do is to cancel this
project. That would be easy to do, but it would be the wrong
thing to do, for this reason: I would find it ironical that, as
we leave the European Union, I can get a high-speed train to
Paris or to Brussels but not to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or
Sheffield. My right hon. Friend talks about the overspend, but we
seem to be able to accommodate at the drop of a hat the overspend
on the Crossrail project, which is overrunning. That is a London
project that is incredibly important for London, but we do not
take a similar view of a project that has been long thought out
and is absolutely essential for the major cities outside London.
I am not short of advice on what to do on HS2, but few pieces of
advice come from somebody as distinguished as a former Transport
Secretary. I have heard what he has had to say, as I know Doug
Oakervee will have done, and I look forward to taking it into
account.
(Nottingham South)
(Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place.
The Secretary of State must understand the huge disappointment in
the east midlands that HS2 phase 2b—which will, as the right hon.
Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir ) said, transform
connectivity between Birmingham and the economies of the
midlands, Yorkshire, the north-east and Scotland—is now facing a
delay of up to seven years, or even cancellation. That is
particularly the case when the Chancellor failed to even mention
the midlands rail hub in his spending review, and when the
Secretary of State’s predecessor not only repeatedly assured us
that HS2 would happen but cancelled the electrification of the
midland main line. I know that the Oakervee review is due to
report, but the disappointment will turn to deep anger if the
Secretary of State does not ensure that the midlands receives the
investment in its transport that it needs.
I thank the hon. Lady; it is a pleasure to have a question from
the Chair of the Transport Committee. The one thing I can assure
her of is that there will be £48 billion of other unrelated rail
investment over the next few years, so both the midlands and the
northern powerhouse rail side of things will certainly have
huge—massive—investment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Reiterating my plea for brevity, I hopefully call Sir .
Sir (Stone) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I welcome the Secretary of State to
his new position. Secondly, I entirely endorse the views of my
right hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) and
for Chesham and Amersham (Dame ). The reality is that this
whole project is completely out of control. The costs have gone
up repeatedly. I voted against it. There is a petition in the
House of Lords, which my constituents were absolutely right to
pursue. This whole project is a complete white elephant and
should be cancelled.
As I say, I am not short of advice on this, and Doug Oakervee
will definitely have heard my hon. Friend’s words.
Mr (Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
I will try to be brief, Mr Speaker. I have always been against
this. I was reviled by Ministers when I said that the cost would
end up at £100 billion. I wanted the investment in a network
across the north of England in preference to this. Will the
Secretary of State assure me that we will learn the lessons? This
is a great sector that we do wonderful things in. We built the
Olympics on time, and it was magnificent. I understand that there
are 12 gagging orders for senior former employees of HS2 Ltd. Can
they give evidence to this inquiry, and can we ensure that we
learn the lessons? We are good in this sector, so why has this
gone wrong?
Even with the Olympics, the cost changed over a period. The hon.
Gentleman will know that big projects require management, and the
process is designed to ensure that this is properly grasped. I
agree with him—we need to deliver that transport infrastructure
across the north. I am surprised that no Member has mentioned it
yet, but these two questions are not entirely unrelated, so we
must get it right for the north and for all our country.
(Kenilworth and Southam)
(Con)
I am not sure it is the entirely appropriate expression to
congratulate my right hon. Friend on inheriting responsibility
for HS2, but I wholeheartedly congratulate him on becoming the
Secretary of State. In agreeing entirely with what my right hon.
Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) said, may I press
the Secretary State on the point he made about enabling works? As
he knows, there is more than one kind of enabling work currently
under way. Some of the enabling work is the destruction of
ancient woodland sites. There are seven of them in my
constituency, along with a very old and much valued pear tree in
the village of Cubbington. Given that he has announced an
all-options review, including the possibility that this project
will be cancelled or significantly revised, surely it is possible
and sensible to categorise those types of enabling work that will
do irreversible damage and postpone them until the review has
concluded. He has already announced a substantial delay in this
project. Surely a delay of a few weeks more would be sensible, to
ensure that we do not do irreversible damage.
As I said before, to have a proper go/no-go decision, we need to
continue to allow enabling works. However, I can ask the
Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member
for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (), who is handling these major
projects, to meet my right hon. and learned Friend to discuss
that specific concern.
Mr (Bolsover) (Lab)
Unlike Derbyshire Dales, HS2 goes through many villages in the
Bolsover and north-east Derbyshire area. The result is that there
are a lot of people in those villages—more than 100—affected by
HS2. I want to know as soon as possible just exactly what is
going to happen to this £100 billion project. It goes through
Derbyshire on two separate lines. Not only does it go past
Sheffield; it also stops at a Sheffield station, so there is a
slow track and a fast track in Derbyshire. The idea that HS2 is
based upon getting to London 30 minutes sooner is a joke and, for
that reason, the Secretary of State should start over again.
I know that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is affected in a
big way. I refer to what I said before. This project affects a
lot of people’s lives, with demolitions and the rest of it in his
patch. He asked me to do this as soon as possible. I have Douglas
Oakervee on an unbelievable timetable, supported by a fantastic
group of people, to get this done and reported back this autumn.
The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait before the end of the
year.
(Erewash) (Con)
Long Eaton, Sandiacre and Stanton Gate are grossly affected by
the eastern arm of HS2 but, as the Chair of the Transport
Committee has already indicated, it brings advantages as
well—jobs and growth as well as the pain. I will say two things.
One is that any delay causes further stress and uncertainty not
just for residents, but for businesses. They will be blighted for
ever more, even if my right hon. Friend takes the easier way out
and cancels the eastern arm. My plea to him is: do not cancel
that eastern arm. I will not allow the east midlands and Erewash
to be the poor relations yet again.
I think every exchange indicates that, while everyone is able to
welcome a review, when we get to the announcement of that review
on the other side the House will not be quite so united, but I
absolutely hear my hon. Friend’s comments.
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab)
Inflation aside, this multi-billion increase in cost betrays
nothing other than sheer incompetence in the management of this
project. In the west midlands, 100,000 jobs are now in jeopardy;
hundreds of millions of pounds of new rates are now in jeopardy;
and the future prospects of the younger generation are now in
jeopardy. I want to know from the Secretary of State what
compensation has been sought by the Mayor of the West Midlands,
because my understanding is that he has asked for precisely
nothing?
We have a range of different people on the Doug Oakervee board,
including , and we are making sure that
all the representations go into it. As I say, I do not want to
rush to prejudge this. We do know certain things. We know from
the Allan Cook report about the range of £72 billion to £78
billion. I do not have confidence in the data I have been
provided with to know yet whether the benefits have outstripped
or under-stripped these various different costs. I just start
with a blank sheet of paper. I just want the data: give me the
facts and then we will be in a much better position to decide,
including for people throughout the west midlands.
(Banbury) (Con)
I am sure I was as pleased as you were, Mr Speaker, to hear about
the review undertaken by the new Secretary of State. Can he
reassure me that, as part of the new cost-benefit analysis, the
review will take into account that many people work very hard
while on trains, as I am about to do as I return to my
constituency on a high-speed train run by Chiltern Rail?
Absolutely. Travelling on a train can be a fantastic way to chomp
through constituency work or anything else that people are doing
on business or for pleasure. It is one of the most civilised ways
to work—when we have our trains running on time, which is another
related priority.
(Normanton, Pontefract and
Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Government widen this review not just to their complete
lack of grip on the HS2 project, but to the continued failure of
the Department to remember that there are towns as well as cities
in this country? It is continually locking billions of pounds
into ever-delayed, ever-escalating projects for cities, while
towns such as Castleford and Pontefract have inadequate
trains—overcrowded, old Pacer trains, with no disabled access to
our trains—and, once again, we are just expected to accept a
trickle-down of benefits many decades into the future. It is not
good enough. When will we actually get a fair deal for our towns?
As the representative of two towns—one, Welwyn Garden, calls
itself a city, but it is actually a town—I absolutely agree with
the idea that towns have a significant part to play in the
economic and social life of our country. One good piece of news:
those Pacers are finally going by the end of this year.
(New Forest East)
(Con)
At what level of exorbitant expenditure will the Government
finally decide to pull the plug?
As I say, it is not just a question of the expenditure. As I
mentioned before, it is also what the benefits are. May I ask my
right hon. Friend just to be patient enough so that the data is
covered on both sides of that, and we can come to a rational and
sensible decision?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Colleagues should now follow the right hon. Member for New Forest
East (Dr Lewis) with single-sentence questions. If they do
not—let us be absolutely clear—they are stopping other colleagues
taking part. It is as simple as that.
(Bath) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State commit to look at any new major
transport infrastructure projects in line with the 2050 net zero
carbon target that this House has set itself?
Yes.
(Cleethorpes) (Con)
There is a north-south divide when it comes to transport
spending. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that he
will consider the benefits to the northern economy when he
reaches his decision?
Absolutely.
Dr (Ealing Central and Acton)
(Lab)
What is the status of the review if we go to the polls this
autumn? My constituents see this as a pre-election bribe for the
Government’s voters in the shires.
This project is too serious to be thinking in those terms, and I
certainly was not when I asked Douglas Oakervee to carry out this
review. As I have now said twice, this is about people’s lives
and livelihoods, and the ability of this country’s economy to
function. Regardless of what happens when we finally get that
election call, I hope there will be cross-party consensus to
continue this important work on a cross-party basis and get the
job done.
(Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State look at the cost envelope by taking
into account enhancements that benefit those on the route,
inflation and incompetence?
As the terms of reference, which I encourage right hon. and hon.
Members to read, make clear, this review is wide ranging and
takes all such matters into account.
Mr (Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
Given the delays to the southern section of the route, will the
Secretary of State ask the review to consider the possibility of
starting the northern sections before the southern section is
finished, so that there is a degree of working overlap?
That is one of the things that Douglas Oakervee is looking at.
Interestingly, Allan Cook’s report, which is in the Library,
suggests doing phases 1 and 2a together.
(Calder Valley) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend that spiralling costs must be
challenged and held to account, but this project is vital for the
northern routes, which are already overstretched. Will he assure
me that this review is not just a smokescreen to cancel the
project, which many of our current Executive do not like?
My hon. Friend’s question reminds me of a clip that I made on the
day of announcing this full, thorough and open review. When the
camera was switched off they said, “What do you really think?”
What I really think is that we should have a full, thorough and
open review.
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab)
Business leaders in Sheffield are deeply concerned about this
review. Does the Secretary of State recognise that, whatever else
he is considering, cancellation would damage the northern
economy?
I assure the hon. Gentleman that, whatever happens, the northern
economy and northern powerhouse rail is set to steam ahead.
(Stafford) (Con)
Will the review take into account the potential negative effects
of the business case on the existing and vital west coast main
line?
Yes it will, and I ask my hon. Friend to meet Douglas Oakervee to
make those points, because every element of this is being taken
into account.
(Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Are there not many abandoned former railway lines across the
country for which, for the first time in a long time, there is
now extensive demand? Those could be reopened for a fraction of
the cost of HS2.
With huge respect to him, I curse Beeching every day in this job
and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
(Rugby) (Con)
What will be the effect of a delay or cancellation of HS2 on the
west coast main line, which is of concern to my constituents in
Rugby?
I do not think there is any direct ramification. We have just
re-let the west coast partnership contract, so the answer to my
hon. Friend is, none.
(Manchester, Withington)
(Lab)
HS2 is vital for the economy of Manchester and the north. As the
chairman’s stocktake says:
“HS2 is not a standalone railway but rather an integral part of
ambitious regional growth plans,”
and it is already attracting investment. Will the Secretary of
State assure us that those wider benefits will fully be taken
into account in this review?
I can. I have met the Mayor of Manchester and Mayors across the
north, and I am due to meet them again shortly. Those things
absolutely will be taken into account.
Mr (Kettering) (Con)
I voted against HS2 every time. Would the money be better spent
on improvements to our existing conventional rail network?
The answer is that I do not know, but I like to think that £48
billion on improving and upgrading our existing networks is a
good down payment.
(Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport assured me that the
full stretch of HS2 will go up to Scotland. Is that the case, and
when?
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are currently struggling with
stages 1, 2a and 2b, but the overall plan was always to go
further.
Mr (North Shropshire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State commit to investing in the costs of
places with collateral damage, such as villages such as Woore in
my constituency that will suffer grievously during the
construction process? Will he also commit to look at the value of
spending £100 billion, which this project is cantering towards,
on full-fibre broadband for every household?
We must have full-fibre broadband in every household, and that is
a commitment of this Government regardless. My right hon. Friend
describes devastation to villages, and I agree that we must find
a better way of doing this. We must look after people properly
when great national projects drive through their homes.
(Delyn) (Lab)
Significant UK and Welsh Government money, linked to HS2 at
Crewe, is going into growth deals in north Wales. What
opportunities are there for the Welsh Government to formally feed
into the review?
There are enormous opportunities. If not on Monday, at the time I
mentioned at the Dispatch Box earlier, then separately I am very
happy to hook up the right hon. Gentleman, and any of his
colleagues, with Doug Oakervee.
Mr (Isle of Wight) (Con)
HS2 will be the most expensive railway ever built by mankind.
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a very
significant opportunity cost and therefore to get bang for our
buck we should be investing in significant regional
infrastructure projects?
That is very effective lobbying. My hon. Friend has already
secured a great achievement with regards to the railway on his
own Island. He proves that we can do both things simultaneously
if we need to.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
The key rail investment in the north has to be a high-speed link
between Liverpool in the west and Hull in the east. Is it not
right that any additional resources should be put into that,
rather than HS2?
I would extend that further to Sheffield, Hull, Newcastle and
other cities in the north. We can do both things and we will do
both things: both upgrading the national rail infrastructure
and—the Prime Minister mentioned this in his first speech, which
he made in Manchester, so I think it would be a bit churlish not
to recognise it—linking northern cities.
Dr (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
The problem with HS2 is that the benefits are not shared around
the country. The west, in particular, gains nothing. Will the
Secretary of State look at how we could put the money into
electrification and rebuilding the Severn tunnel?
I do not know in what form this will or will not take place, but
I do know that the jobs, skills and supply chain affect the
entire nation. There is almost not a constituency in the country
that would not benefit in some way. As with any big national
infrastructure project, we need to ensure that the benefits of
that work and supply chain are spread across the nation.
(Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Given that the entire review will be completed in a matter of
weeks, can the Secretary of State really have confidence that it
will have thoroughly considered the impacts that scrapping or
changing phases 2a and 2b would have on Crewe and Nantwich, as a
significant centre of economic activity for the wider region?
Yes, I think I can reassure the hon. Lady that, although the
review is reporting very quickly—within weeks, as she says—the
experience on the panel adds up to years. I have not added it up,
but it is possibly hundreds of years of rail experience. I think
they will really take that into account. Again, I invite and
welcome her to speak to Douglas Oakervee to make sure 2a and 2b
are fully represented in her terms.
(Glasgow North West)
(SNP)
Can the Secretary of State give us a date for when we can expect
HS2 to be extended to Scotland? If not, are the people of
Scotland expected to sit and watch £100 billion being spent on
this project when it literally pulls up short?
I do not want to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I cannot give her
a date on the initial phases, let alone on that extension. I do
think there is a very good point here about linking up our Union.
I am pleased to see the nationalist side so onside with that
project.
Mr (Glasgow North East)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State mentions the extension to Scotland.
However, journey times between Glasgow and Manchester will
increase as a result of HS2. Will he ask the review to consider
expediting an extension north to Glasgow from Manchester as a
matter of urgency?
Again, I think this comes into the wider picture. The £48 billion
of rail investment over five years means that we should be able
to do lots of different things at the same time—and indeed, we
are. I think that is part of the wider infrastructure project for
improvements on rail throughout the country.
