Parliamentary Committees and Public Enquiries
Poor Government case for a £50 billion investment in HS2
The Government has not made a convincing case for HS2. It must do so before Parliament passes the Bill to enable the construction of the first stage of the railway to begin. This is the conclusion of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee, in a report published recently.
- Report: The Economic Case for HS2 (HTML)
- Report: The Economic Case for HS2 (PDF)
- Oral and written evidence: The Economic Case for HS2 ( PDF 11.74 MB)
- Inquiry: The Economic Case for HS2
- Economic Affairs Committee
The Committee supports transport infrastructure investment. However, at a cost of £50bn HS2 will be one of the most expensive infrastructure projects ever undertaken in the UK. The Committee argues that the Government have not yet made a convincing case for why it is necessary.
The Government sets two main objectives for HS2: increasing capacity on the railway and rebalancing the economy but, concludes the report, it fails to make a convincing case for either.
Full information on railway usage has not been made publicly available by the Government, on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. The evidence shows that long distance trains arriving at and departing from Euston are, on average, just 43 per cent full and even during peak times are only between 50 and 60 per cent full. Overcrowding is largely a problem confined to Friday evenings and weekends on long-distance trains and to London-bound commuter trains.
There are less expensive options to remedy these problems than HS2 but these have not been properly reviewed.
On rebalancing the economy
The Committee agrees with the objective to rebalance the economy but disputes the claim that HS2 is the way to achieve it. The evidence from other countries, such as France, shows that the capital city is the biggest beneficiary from high speed rail.
London would most likely be the biggest beneficiary from HS2. The Committee argues there is a strong case for improving the trans-Pennine links or building the northern legs of HS2 first, both of which could be a better way of rebalancing the economy than building the southern leg of HS2.
The Committee says that the cost per mile of HS2 is estimated to be up to nine higher than the cost of constructing high speed lines in France. The Committee suggests that, if HS2 is to go ahead, the cost could be reduced by building it to run at 200 mph, as in Europe, instead of 250 mph, terminating the line at Old Oak Common or learning lessons from France to reduce the cost of construction.
The report suggests that the huge public subsidy to HS2, an estimated net £31.5 billion, conflicts with the Government's declared objective of making rail less dependent on public subsidy. The Committee argues that such large expenditure should be considered against the background of financial restraint. It queries whether the users of the proposed line, mainly business travellers, should carry more of the cost than is currently proposed.
The report also points out that the cost-benefit analysis for HS2 relies on out-of-date evidence, some dating back to 1994. The Department of Transport admits that fresh evidence is required and the Committee believes this should be provided before Parliament passes the HS2 enabling legislation. The Government's claim that the cost-benefit analysis placed HS2 in the high value-for-money category was disputed by a number of witnesses, who assessed it as being in the bottom 10 per cent of projects.
It is expected that the enabling legislation for HS2 Phase 1 will come to the Lords in the next Parliament and receive Royal Assent by the end of 2016. The committee concludes that this should not happen unless the Government has answered the important questions its report raises.
Commenting, Lord Hollick, Chairman of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee said:
“At £50bn HS2 will be one of the most expensive infrastructure projects ever undertaken in the UK but the Government have not yet made a convincing case for why it is necessary.
“The Committee are supportive of investment in rail infrastructure, but are not convinced that HS2 as currently proposed is the best way to deliver that investment. The Government are basing the justification for HS2 on two factors – increased rail capacity and rebalancing the UK economy; we have not seen the evidence that it is the best way to deliver either.
“Overcrowding on the West Coast Main Line is largely a problem on commuter trains and on long-distance trains immediately after peak time on Friday evenings and at some weekends. The Government have not carried out a proper assessment of whether alternative ways of increasing capacity are more cost effective than HS2.
“Full information on railway usage has not been made publicly available by the Government on grounds of commercial sensitivity. The plausibility of the Government’s claim that there are current long distance capacity constraints and also its forecast of future passenger demand are difficult to assess without full access to current railway usage. The investment of £50bn investment of public money demands nothing less than full transparency.
“In terms of rebalancing, London is likely to be the main beneficiary from HS2. Investment in improving rail links in the North of England might deliver much greater economic benefit at a fraction of the cost of HS2.
“We have set out a number of important questions on HS2 that the Government must now provide detailed answers to. Parliament should not approve the enabling legislation that will allow HS2 work to begin until we have satisfactory answers to these key questions.”
Latest News from
Parliamentary Committees and Public Enquiries
Change the law now to ensure end to blanket bans on care home visits, urges Joint Committee05/05/2021 11:15:00
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has prepared a draft statutory instrument to lay before Parliament to secure legal protection for care home residents deprived of family visits, and therefore, their human rights.
Supply chain for battery electric vehicles inquiry launched04/05/2021 15:05:00
In the latest stage of its Technological Innovation and Climate Change inquiry, the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) announces that it is to look at the supply chain for battery electric vehicles.
Privileges Committee publish key report on select committee powers03/05/2021 10:20:00
The Committee of Privileges publishes a key report on select committee powers, setting out preliminary proposals to ensure the committee powers to call for persons, papers and records can be enforced and that witnesses before committees are treated fairly.
MPs urge Government to level playing field for meat and seafood exporters30/04/2021 13:05:00
The Government must take a 'pragmatic' approach in discussions with the EU to reduce 'considerable' non-tariff barriers—including red tape and checks— that the new GB-EU trading environment has created for British companies.
European Statutory Instruments Committee publishes twenty-fourth report29/04/2021 16:10:00
Following the Committee's meeting on Tuesday 27 April, its twenty-fourth report of Session 2019-21 has been published.
Mineworkers’ pensions - Government should fix ‘historic injustice’ felt by Scheme members29/04/2021 11:15:00
The Government should review the surplus sharing arrangements in the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme to ensure they are fair and deliver a better outcome for pensioners, say the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee.
Sub-Committee on Foreign Involvement in the Defence Supply Chain publishes Special Report29/04/2021 10:20:00
The Defence Sub-Committee on Foreign Involvement in the Defence Supply Chain publishes its Special Report outlining the Government’s response to its report.
EU proposals on ‘Big Tech’ could have significant impact on UK28/04/2021 12:05:00
The European Scrutiny Committee publishes documents considered by the Committee on 21 April 2021.