Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
reports alleging that HS2 Ltd did not disclose accurate cost
estimates for the project; and what plans they have to establish
an independent inquiry into that company’s actions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, my department and HS2 Ltd have ensured, and will
continue to ensure, claims of misrepresentation are taken
seriously and thoroughly investigated. Several of the claims
recently detailed in the media have already been established as
unfounded, including through an independent National Audit Office
report in 2018. The HS2 Ltd counterfraud and business ethics team
is investigating the most recent allegation about the company,
and while this is under investigation it would be inappropriate
to comment further.
(Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that interesting response. There
were a lot of people quoted in the Sunday Timesat the weekend,
including experienced HS2 directors who have risked their careers
and jobs because they are so worried about what went wrong within
the company. Noble Lords will know that the Prime Minister
criticised HS2 in his speech at the Conservative party
conference, and I quote:
“There must be some accountability for the mistakes made, for the
mismanagement of this project”.
Those are tough words from the Prime Minister. Can I suggest to
the noble Baroness that, if she will not have an independent
public inquiry into these allegations, the Government should sue
the Sunday Timesand take it to court?
(Con)
As I said in my opening Answer, it is clear that people wish to
make allegations against HS2 Ltd, and we would absolutely
encourage them to come forward with evidence. There are a number
of mechanisms by which that evidence can be reviewed and further
action taken if needed.
(Con)
Is my noble friend aware that there have been two reports by the
Economic Affairs Committee of this House on HS2—one four years
ago and another four years before that? The first report
suggested to the Government that it might be more sensible and
represent more value for money if the expenditure was
concentrated on east-west infra- structure in the north of
England, and pointed to the concern about the viability of the
business case. The second report—I was chairman and should
declare that interest—pointed out that costs were out of control,
and that if this was not dealt with it would result in the
Government having to cancel the northern routes altogether and be
left with a white elephant. Is the lesson here not that the
Government should pay more attention to Select Committees of this
House?
(Con)
The Government always pay attention to Select Committees of this
House. I well remember when my noble friend and I debated that
report—indeed, many other noble Lords took part in that debate.
That is just one of the many mechanisms that Parliament has, and
that wider society has, for holding the Government and HS2 to
account.
(Lab)
My Lords, when it comes to misrepresentation, can the noble
Baroness confirm that Mr , the Conservative Mayor of the
West Midlands, was persuaded by the Prime Minister not to resign
over the decision on HS2 because he was promised that the link to
Euston would be continued? It now turns out that that is not
certain at all and depends on additional private finance. Why
have the Government not been straight about this ridiculous
decision not to run it into Euston?
(Con)
As the noble Lord well knows, the decision has been taken to run
it into Euston. My colleague the Rail Minister has had a number
of meetings with members of the private finance community to
start developing plans and options to get that finance together.
Battersea Power Station, for example, attracted £9 billion in
private sector investment. It is not beyond the wit of man to do
something similar, perhaps even more, for the Euston quarter.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we need to
take a very close look at the legislative process for large
infrastructure projects and at the whole planning system?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question, but it goes slightly
beyond the topic at hand. After the hybrid Bill for phase 2a of
HS2, both Houses looked at the hybrid Bill system. It is
something that we should continue to refine and improve. However,
some infrastructure projects are so large that a hybrid Bill is
really the only option.
(GP)
My Lords, I thought this was good journalism from the Sunday
Times, but what do I know? It offered a helpful list of what that
£100 billion could have been spent on, including 270,000 nurses,
1 million council homes, 200 hospitals or 10,000 schools. Have
this Government looted the public purse for so long—13 years—that
they do not understand how important it is to keep track of this
sort of alleged corruption?
(Con)
The noble Baroness will be unsurprised to hear that I do not
agree. I do not normally comment on media articles, but this was
a collection of old allegations which, as I said previously, the
National Audit Office has established were unfounded. I also said
that HS2 Ltd is looking at the allegation that has not yet been
investigated, so I cannot comment on it. However, the noble
Baroness is right that some good things have come out of the
cancellation of HS2, such as the billions of pounds that we have
been able to invest in the rest of the transport network in the
north and the Midlands.
(LD)
My Lords, making even less economic sense than the Government’s
decision to truncate HS2 at Birmingham is their vindictive
scorched-earth policy to sell off all the land they purchased
immediately. Will the Government learn the lessons of railway
history? Many good modern rail projects cannot proceed because
land was sold off following the Beeching debacle—another expert
Tory action. Will the Government learn that lesson and undertake
a thorough look at all the pieces of land for all potential
future rail projects, many of which they are suggesting, to make
sure that no land is sold off that will be needed in future?
(Con)
I am delighted to reassure the noble Baroness that that is
precisely what we are doing. We have looked at the land for phase
2a and concluded that we do not need it for other rail projects.
Therefore, safeguarding will be formally lifted. However, we will
not lift the formal safeguarding for phase 2b until next summer,
because there is a job of work to be done. The noble Baroness is
absolutely right: the Government will not sell off the land until
we have established which bits will be needed for projects such
as Northern Powerhouse Rail.
(Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, on top of
the financial fiasco surrounding HS2 that has already unfolded,
it appears that the Government are about to add what High Speed
Rail Group calculated as more than £100 million of further losses
to the taxpayer in the fire sale of land that had been acquired
along the route. Will the Minister respond to comments made by
Sir John Armitt and the National Infrastructure Commission that
it would be a mistake to sell off the land that the Government
bought and that they should keep their options open?
(Con)
The Government are keeping their options open as necessary.
(Con)
Will my noble friend assure the House that there is no need for
another inquiry into HS2? If anything, there should be an inquiry
into how many inquiries there have been into HS2 over the course
of its life. However, perhaps an inquiry into the way that the
decision was made to not continue with the rest of HS2 would be
appropriate. The company for HS2, the Department for Transport
and the Treasury will always have the National Audit Office
operating and keeping a watchful eye on them, as was made so
clear by the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, , just a few days ago. I declare my interest as a
former Secretary of State for Transport.
(Con)
I cautiously agree with my noble friend that there have been an
enormous number of inquiries into HS2 over time. However, so many
of them were needed, and indeed will continue to be so. There is
an enormous amount of scrutiny of HS2 Ltd, not only from the
Public Accounts Committee, where the senior responsible officer,
the Permanent Secretary, appears and will appear next month, but
from the Transport Select Committee, the committee of your
Lordships’ House, and other bodies such as the National Audit
Office. I am sure that their scrutiny will continue, and rightly
so.
