PoliticsUK

Mr. Speaker,

My Rt. Hon friend, the Member for Barking, once called the HS2 modelling “shocking, biased, and bonkers.” One of the more well-known members of the London Assembly, Shaun Bailey, said it was an “overpriced scheme based on outdated technology” that was “crowding out the investment we need.” Former Business Secretary Lord Mandelson has called it an “expensive mistake” and claimed that it will “damage in particular to those people that it was intended to help.” My friend the Rt. Hon. member for North Somerset and countless of my other Rt. Hon. and Hon. friends on this side of the bench have spoken out against it as well. And while I hate to say it, if both Lord Mandelson and my Rt. Hon. friend, the gentleman for North Somerset agree on something, we should probably take their opinion seriously. The polling shows that the public agrees with them - a ComRes poll from February shows that the British publish are more than twice as likely to want the project scrapped.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the boondoggle to end all boondoggles. A project that was initially supposed to cost 32.7 billion pounds now looks as though it will cost over 80 billion. It has received multiple delays to their Notice to Proceeds. This simply cannot go on. A good government practices good governance, and we cannot let this continue unabated.

To that end, I have appointed Lord Berkeley to chair an independent review of the HS2 project and the idea of a national high-speed rail strategy. Lord Berkeley brings a stellar CV to this position. A civil engineer who worked for Eurotunnel for ten years during which they built the Channel Tunnel, he is intimately familiar with the size and scope of high-speed rail projects, having been close to the action on HS1. He offers experience on both rail freight and passenger rail, as well as rail connections with Europe.

I will be charging him with reviewing the current progress of HS2, offering recommendations to this department for implementation, and potential alternatives that will fulfill our commitments and lead to further expansion of high-speed rail across the country, to be delivered to me and the Prime Minister by the end of Q4 2019. I’d like to briefly speak on those commitments. In no way will this report absolve this Government from doing right by Birmingham, the Midlands, and the North. We have promised investment, we have promised connectivity, and we will keep those promises in the way that best suits the public and economic interests, because frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is the right thing to do. There is a way to do transport policy that is popular, eco-friendly, and good for our economy. It seems to me that no one in either party has just felt like it's a good idea to try that on for a spin. Before we lay track and dedicate ourselves to this forever, let's remember that old saying - "measure twice, cut once." We have not had the opportunity to measure a second time, but it is vital that we have that, and I am thankful that Lord Berkeley brings his long array of skills and experiences to this so that we can finally make a cut that will be useful in our larger structure.

The hon. member for Slough (Mr. Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi):

Mr Speaker,

I rise to make this response on behalf of my hon. friend, the member for Aberavon. Having listened to the statement given by the right honourable gentleman, one would be forgiven for wondering whether he did not intend to scrap High Speed 2 despite his assurances to the contrary towards the West Midlands Mayor on the social media. Indeed, one comes away wondering if he didn't change his mind halfway through his statement and decided to shy away from what would not be a welcome announcement for many communities who were promised this line and rely on it.

Because that's what it sounds like. The promise given since the project was conceived and time and time again over the past decade as late as 2017 is a transport lifeline to the West Midlands, as his party colleague will remind him, and the North. It is telling, Mr Speaker, that the first two sources of his quotes aren't from these regions - but from London. The double standards are quite appalling. When a railway line and airport expansion between three airports surrounding the capital conceived at his drawing table overspends by a few billion, the Minister is very quick to swat that away even if the economic gain is in that area over decades. But when a 15-billion a year in revenue project overspends, he is very quick to dismiss it and call in a commission to excuse him for cancelling it.

Indeed, while I respect Lord Berkeley's expertise immensely, it is not hard to fathom why he was chosen given his views on the project. Combined with his opener, we can conclude from these two facts that what the Minister intend is not to review High Speed 2 and improve it, but to scrap it. In this case, I wish he would be honest to the many people he is letting down outside London and say so upfront and honest. He said so himself in question time earlier this week - projects get cancelled all the time. So what is he waiting for?

It is an unfortunate reality that some infrastructure projects have a tendency to see their costs underestimated at the outset. Mr Speaker, the Minister referred to measuring twice but cutting once. So far, it's more than thrice measured! The costs he gives are adjusted for inflation while the original costs, of course, aren't. It is therefore quite disingenuous, to say the least, to pretend the costs have ballooned so much. I would advise him to compare apples and apples next time - after all, we don't want to run afoul of that old saying "don't compare apples and oranges".

But quite apart from that, the fact remains that the economic returns of this project still run in the margin of 1.5 pounds to each pound spent on it. Even with a further overrun to 100 billion, the estimated revenues and economic benefits would mean the project recoups itself in under a decade - seven years in fact. That is not to mention the incalculable social and community benefits accruing to communities connected under this project - communities that have been promised this economic lifeline for far too long and are now once again facing a dithering government delaying and possibly denying them. A redrawn plan would have to go through the whole contracting circus now and again, make double costs in some areas, and easily leave these communities waiting for another decade as land is purchased.

If we want to connect communities across this country, we should focus our energies on the next steps, not the current ones. Any review should be focused on that - for the economic and social benefits, and the promises made to the affected communities, weigh far too strongly to dither now. We wish Lord Berkeley the best of luck - but we caution the government not to think too lightly about redrawing infrastructure plans at the stroke of a pen.