Recommendations & Conclusions
23 items
4
Recommendation
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
HS2 Ltd’s efforts to reduce the environmental impact of HS2 are not delivering value for money, with the c.£100 million cost of a protective ‘bat tunnel’ more than doubling the cost of that section of railway alone. The Committee does not consider that the right balance has been struck between …
Read more
HS2 Ltd’s efforts to reduce the environmental impact of HS2 are not delivering value for money, with the c.£100 million cost of a protective ‘bat tunnel’ more than doubling the cost of that section of railway alone. The Committee does not consider that the right balance has been struck between protecting the landscape and wildlife and the burden this places 5 on taxpayers in relation to large public infrastructure projects such as this. The most striking example of this is the 1 kilometre long ‘bat tunnel’ that HS2 Ltd is building at a cost of c.£100 million (in 2019 prices) to reduce the impact of the railway in that area on a protected species of bat. This is in addition to the £73 million cost of building the underlying stretch of railway and the time and effort taken by DfT, HS2 Ltd and other bodies involved to agree the design and planning permission for the structure. The fact that the Department and HS2 Ltd chose this solution leaves us concerned that the cost to the public purse was not properly front and centre to their decision making. The Department acknowledged that the laws in this area for national infrastructure should be reviewed and while we welcome the recent announcements from government to reduce such burdens on infrastructure projects, through a Nature Restoration Fund, it is not clear to what extent this would reduce costs and delays for major projects such as HS2. recommendation In its letter to us before the 2025 summer recess, the Department should set out how it will work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to assess what impact the new nature restoration fund would have had on the section of the line where the bat tunnel is, and use that case study to help refine the operation of the fund.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees to provide a final response by early 2026, after proposed Planning and Infrastructure Bill measures are finalised, regarding how the Nature Restoration Fund would have impacted the bat tunnel case study. They are already working with DEFRA to inform the operation of …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
12
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
Prior to the October 2023 announcement, HS2 Ltd estimated that the total costs of Phase 1 would be £49 billion to £57 billion. The Department’s estimate was lower, at £45 billion to £54 billion but still above the funding envelope of £44.6 billion set in 2019. These estimates were all …
Read more
Prior to the October 2023 announcement, HS2 Ltd estimated that the total costs of Phase 1 would be £49 billion to £57 billion. The Department’s estimate was lower, at £45 billion to £54 billion but still above the funding envelope of £44.6 billion set in 2019. These estimates were all calculated 14 Qq 72–73 15 Qq 5, 37, 39 16 Qq 1, 6–7, 12 17 C&AG’s Report, Figure 8 18 Qq 6, 9, 13 19 Q 12 12 using 2019 prices.20 HS2 Ltd has continued to assess the cost of the programme and provided an even higher estimate to its Board in June 2024 of £54 billion to £66 billion, again still in 2019 prices. HS2 Ltd told us that this was based on new information and data from the supply chain. The Department reported that this estimate had been included in its six– monthly report to Parliament for the purposes of transparency. However, it was highly uncertain and subject to further assurance, and had not been approved by the HS2 Ltd Board or by the Department. Also, the estimate did not take into account work as part of resetting the programme and any private financing.21
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the 'recommendation' and commits to finalizing a cost estimating methodology over the summer, with full implementation as part of the programme reset in 2026, following a comprehensive review by the HS2 Ltd CEO.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
13
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
We expressed to the Department how unsatisfactory we found it that the cost estimates for completing the programme are still in 2019 prices. The Department agreed, telling us that it expects that any funding agreed at the spending review will be in current prices. It also explained that this will …
Read more
We expressed to the Department how unsatisfactory we found it that the cost estimates for completing the programme are still in 2019 prices. The Department agreed, telling us that it expects that any funding agreed at the spending review will be in current prices. It also explained that this will produce an increase in the estimated total programme cost in cash terms given that the adjustment will cover a period of time that has seen very high inflation, particularly in the construction sector.22 HS2 Ltd, in January 2024 evidence to the Transport Committee, estimated that bringing its estimate in 2019 prices up to 2023–24 prices would add a further £8 billion to £10 billion to the cost of Phase 1.23 With HS2 Ltd’s latest estimate for completing Phase 1 now £54 billion to £66 billion even in 2019 prices, the total programme costs might therefore be close to £80 billion in current prices.24
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the 'recommendation' and has commissioned a comprehensive review of the programme and its cost position, aiming to inform a programme reset in 2026. They are finalizing a cost estimating methodology, with full implementation planned as part of this reset.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
14
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
The Department confirmed that as well as agreeing a revised cost for the programme with HS2 Ltd, there will also be challenge from HM Treasury before a revised budget for the programme can be set. It told us that HM Treasury is already closely engaged and an important step in …
Read more
The Department confirmed that as well as agreeing a revised cost for the programme with HS2 Ltd, there will also be challenge from HM Treasury before a revised budget for the programme can be set. It told us that HM Treasury is already closely engaged and an important step in determining the eventual cost of the programme will be the upcoming spending review. As part of that, the Department will need to agree with the Treasury what the funding profile for the programme will be for the remainder of this Parliament.25
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the 'recommendation' and is commissioning a comprehensive review of the programme, including its cost position, to inform a reset in 2026. They are finalizing a cost estimating methodology with HM Treasury advice over the summer, to be fully implemented as part …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
15
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
The Department emphasised the need for a long–term spending profile for the completion of HS2, acknowledging to us that agreeing annual budget settlements was really poor for long–term infrastructure delivery.26 20 C&AG’s Report, para 4.6 and 4.7; Department for Transport, HS2 6 monthly report to Parliament: October 2020, 13 October …
Read more
The Department emphasised the need for a long–term spending profile for the completion of HS2, acknowledging to us that agreeing annual budget settlements was really poor for long–term infrastructure delivery.26 20 C&AG’s Report, para 4.6 and 4.7; Department for Transport, HS2 6 monthly report to Parliament: October 2020, 13 October 2020 21 Q 7; Department for Transport, HS2 6-monthly report to Parliament: December 2024, 17 December 2024 22 Qq 23–25 23 Transport Committee, Oral evidence: HS2: progress update, HC 85, Q 408 24 Department for Transport, HS2 6-monthly report to Parliament: December 2024, 17 December 2024 25 Qq 14, 19 26 Q 21 13 However, ahead of the programme’s reset and spending review and the longer–term certainty they should provide, the Department reported that it is having to manage HS2 Ltd’s delivery through annual funding and delivery targets for this year and the next. HS2 Ltd told us that it recognised this as a necessary short–term intervention.27 Renegotiating contracts
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the 'recommendation' and has commissioned a comprehensive review of the programme and its cost position, aiming to inform a programme reset in 2026. They are finalizing a cost estimating methodology, with full implementation planned as part of this reset.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
16
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
In July 2017, HS2 Ltd let contracts with four joint venture companies for the main civil construction work on Phase 1. However, in 2020, once the cost of building the railway became clearer, it revised the terms of the contracts in an attempt to ensure an affordable programme at that …
Read more
In July 2017, HS2 Ltd let contracts with four joint venture companies for the main civil construction work on Phase 1. However, in 2020, once the cost of building the railway became clearer, it revised the terms of the contracts in an attempt to ensure an affordable programme at that time. Contractors would no longer be liable for cost increases above a fixed target price. Instead HS2 Ltd would be responsible for funding increases above the estimated cost although contractors would lose a proportion of their fee for building the railway if they did not meet performance indicators on cost and schedule.28
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government "disagrees with the committee's recommendation" but "agrees with the substance," stating that contract renegotiations are ongoing and subsumed into a wider program reset, and further updates will be provided later.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
17
Recommendation
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
However, the previous Public Accounts Committee was clear on the risk of these changes and that HS2 Ltd needed to closely manage these contracts. In its May 2020 report it warned that: “Now that it is bearing more of the risk of cost increases, HS2 Ltd also needs to ensure …
Read more
However, the previous Public Accounts Committee was clear on the risk of these changes and that HS2 Ltd needed to closely manage these contracts. In its May 2020 report it warned that: “Now that it is bearing more of the risk of cost increases, HS2 Ltd also needs to ensure that it has the right commercial skills to manage its revised contractual arrangements with its main construction contractors.” 29
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it disagrees with the recommendation but agrees with its substance, needing more time for an update as commercial renegotiations are subsumed into a complete programme reset by the HS2 Ltd CEO. HS2 Ltd will apply robust contract management in the interim.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
18
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
HS2 Ltd acknowledged that it has not managed these contract risks in an optimal or coherent way.30 In September 2023, HS2 Ltd estimated that the forecast cost of main civil construction work alone had increased by £6 billion (2019 prices) since 2020.31 27 Q 35; Department for Transport, HS2 6-monthly …
Read more
HS2 Ltd acknowledged that it has not managed these contract risks in an optimal or coherent way.30 In September 2023, HS2 Ltd estimated that the forecast cost of main civil construction work alone had increased by £6 billion (2019 prices) since 2020.31 27 Q 35; Department for Transport, HS2 6-monthly report to Parliament: December 2024, 17 December 2024 28 C&AG’s Report, High Speed Two: A progress update, Session 2019–20, HC 40, 24 January 2020 29 Committee of Public Accounts, High Speed 2: Spring 2020 update, Third Report of Session 2019–21, HC 84, 17 May 2020 30 Q 5 31 C&AG’s Report, para 4.6 14
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the committee's observation but agrees with its substance, explaining that HS2 Ltd is undergoing a complete programme reset, including commercial renegotiations, and will provide further updates as the commercially sensitive work concludes.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
19
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
HS2 Ltd told us that it is now seeking to renegotiate these contracts.32 It considers that the current contracts are unproductive and that reset provides the opportunity for a fair allocation of risk and an opportunity to find different ways of commercially incentivising the outcomes that it wants, rather than …
Read more
HS2 Ltd told us that it is now seeking to renegotiate these contracts.32 It considers that the current contracts are unproductive and that reset provides the opportunity for a fair allocation of risk and an opportunity to find different ways of commercially incentivising the outcomes that it wants, rather than the ones that it is getting at the moment.33
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it disagrees with the recommendation but agrees with its substance, needing more time for an update. Commercial renegotiations are ongoing and subsumed into a complete programme reset by HS2 Ltd's new CEO, with robust contract management applied until that work concludes.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
20
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
We challenged HS2 Ltd on the feasibility of renegotiating existing contacts to deliver significant cost savings given the lack of incentives for the contractors to change terms. It told us that all major contractors have expressed willingness to discuss and work through a renegotiation as there was recognition from the …
Read more
We challenged HS2 Ltd on the feasibility of renegotiating existing contacts to deliver significant cost savings given the lack of incentives for the contractors to change terms. It told us that all major contractors have expressed willingness to discuss and work through a renegotiation as there was recognition from the private sector that better alignment of incentives between the taxpayer and the delivery of the works was necessary to reduce long–term risk. HS2 Ltd also emphasised that the major contractors would want to work on future rail and wider government infrastructure programmes and so would want to help successfully deliver HS2.34
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government "disagrees with the committee's recommendation" but "agrees with the substance," explaining that contract renegotiations are ongoing and highly commercially sensitive, forming part of a wider programme reset, with further updates promised in future six-monthly reports.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
21
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
We expressed our concern to HS2 Ltd for the potential for the large main contractors to pass any financial consequences of contract renegotiations down the supply chain to the small and medium–sized enterprises, of which HS2 Ltd told us there were around 2,400, who may find it more difficult to …
Read more
We expressed our concern to HS2 Ltd for the potential for the large main contractors to pass any financial consequences of contract renegotiations down the supply chain to the small and medium–sized enterprises, of which HS2 Ltd told us there were around 2,400, who may find it more difficult to absorb such changes. HS2 Ltd acknowledged this issue, telling us that it will take this into account as part of its renegotiations and commercial management.35 Environmental obligations
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it disagrees with the recommendation but agrees with its substance, deferring a full update until ongoing commercial renegotiations, which are subsumed into a broader programme reset, are complete. HS2 Ltd will apply robust contract management in the interim.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
22
Recommendation
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
We challenged the Department on the balance in legislation that needs to be taken between meeting environmental obligations and costs, raising the example of the £100 million cost of a protective ‘bat tunnel’.36 In order to mitigate HS2’s impact on nearby bat habitats, the Sheephouse Wood Bat Protection Structure is …
Read more
We challenged the Department on the balance in legislation that needs to be taken between meeting environmental obligations and costs, raising the example of the £100 million cost of a protective ‘bat tunnel’.36 In order to mitigate HS2’s impact on nearby bat habitats, the Sheephouse Wood Bat Protection Structure is being constructed near Calvert in Buckinghamshire. The structure will be a combination of concrete arches and mesh inserts and around 1km in length and up to 10m high.37 The Department explained that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the International Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, HS2 Ltd was legally required to mitigate the damage or harm to protected species, such as the bats that lived in the area of that section of railway. Both the Department and HS2 Ltd told us that they understood the public concern over the cost of the 32 Q 30 33 Qq 40–41 34 Qq 40–41 35 Q 43 36 Qq 15–16, 18 37 HS2 Ltd, Sheephouse Wood Bat Protection Structure Information Boards, October 2022 15 structure but emphasised that it was a considerable engineering structure, built to last 120 years.38 We note that the enabling legislation for both Phase 1 and 2a passed ahead of the Environment Act 2021 which required developers to achieve a 10% biodiversity net gain. Government will need to ensure that these legislative requirements do not lead to decisions which disproportionately add to the cost of major public infrastructure projects resulting in poor value for money.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation and intends to provide a preliminary response by Summer 2025. A final response is deferred until early 2026, pending the finalisation and Royal Assent of proposed measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
23
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
HS2 Ltd confirmed that it was its decision to build the structure and not one required by Natural England. However, the Department and HS2 Ltd told us that, despite its cost, that they had concluded the ‘tunnel’ structure was the most efficient and appropriate way to protect the bats out …
Read more
HS2 Ltd confirmed that it was its decision to build the structure and not one required by Natural England. However, the Department and HS2 Ltd told us that, despite its cost, that they had concluded the ‘tunnel’ structure was the most efficient and appropriate way to protect the bats out of the 15 options considered.39 Other options were rejected because of either “excessive cost, technical infeasibility or ecological ineffectiveness”. Their assessment included “robust challenge” from HM Treasury, a review by Arup on whether the solution could be delivered more efficiently and work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England to test whether the structure would provide the legal compliance and whether there were any better solutions that also reduced costs.40
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the observation but defers a final response until early 2026, pending the finalisation and understanding of measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, while committing to a preliminary response by July 2025.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
24
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
The Department strongly agreed, however, about how the balance between compliance and cost should be considered when delivering national infrastructure in the future.41 HS2 Ltd also recognised that it was a complex issue and a sensitive area, telling us that the structure needed local planning permission from Buckinghamshire Council which …
Read more
The Department strongly agreed, however, about how the balance between compliance and cost should be considered when delivering national infrastructure in the future.41 HS2 Ltd also recognised that it was a complex issue and a sensitive area, telling us that the structure needed local planning permission from Buckinghamshire Council which led to at least a four–year delay which was eventually resolved by the planning inspector.42
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees but will provide a preliminary response by July 2025, with a final response by early 2026, as the full assessment depends on proposed measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which are not yet finalized or received Royal Assent. The department is …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
25
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
In follow–up evidence, the Department confirmed that the total cost of building the structure will be £95 million (in 2019 prices). The Department also reported that the cost of building that section of the railway, irrespective of any mitigation works, would have been £73 million, meaning that the bat structure …
Read more
In follow–up evidence, the Department confirmed that the total cost of building the structure will be £95 million (in 2019 prices). The Department also reported that the cost of building that section of the railway, irrespective of any mitigation works, would have been £73 million, meaning that the bat structure more than doubled the costs of that section of railway to £168 million.43
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's observation and commits to a preliminary response by July 2025, with a final response by early 2026 after proposed measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill are finalised and Royal Assent received.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
26
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
HS2 Ltd does not monitor how much in total it spends on environmental mitigation. For example, we asked HS2 Ltd how much it was spending on wildlife migration schemes such as for the great crested newt at Halse Copse. In its follow–up letter, HS2 Ltd told us that it was …
Read more
HS2 Ltd does not monitor how much in total it spends on environmental mitigation. For example, we asked HS2 Ltd how much it was spending on wildlife migration schemes such as for the great crested newt at Halse Copse. In its follow–up letter, HS2 Ltd told us that it was not able 38 Qq 15–16, 18; Letter from DfT on cost breakdown of the HS2 bat mitigation structure at Sheephouse Wood, dated 31 January 2025 39 Qq 15–16, 18 40 Q 18; Letter from DfT on cost breakdown of the HS2 bat mitigation structure at Sheephouse Wood, dated 31 January 2025 41 Qq 15–16, 18 42 Q 16 43 Letter from DfT on cost breakdown of the HS2 bat mitigation structure at Sheephouse Wood, dated 31 January 2025 16 to provide that information as the provision and maintenance of habitat migration forms part of ‘integrated work packages’ and HS2 Ltd had set no requirement in these contracts to segregate the cost of mitigation schemes.44
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the conclusion but defers a final response until early 2026, pending the finalisation and Royal Assent of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and a full understanding of its measures, which would inform a re-assessment of this issue.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
27
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
In January 2025, the government announced that it will look to change how infrastructure projects meet their environmental obligations as part of its forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It set out that this would include a Nature Restoration Fund which will pool contributions from developers to fund larger strategic interventions …
Read more
In January 2025, the government announced that it will look to change how infrastructure projects meet their environmental obligations as part of its forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It set out that this would include a Nature Restoration Fund which will pool contributions from developers to fund larger strategic interventions by, for example, Natural England. In many cases this should enable infrastructure builders to make a single payment to enable development to proceed. The government considers that this approach should be quicker and less burdensome than the current requirement of needing to secure mitigation or compensation for environmental harm before planning permission can be granted on an individual site or project basis.45 Ensuring the right skills and capability
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the conclusion but defers a final response until early 2026, pending the finalisation and Royal Assent of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and a full understanding of its proposed measures.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
33
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
We challenged the Department over the necessity and added risk of establishing an additional delivery body to oversee the works at Euston and its surroundings. The Department recognised that setting up new organisations is far more complex and difficult than is often thought, and that its experience with HS2 Ltd …
Read more
We challenged the Department over the necessity and added risk of establishing an additional delivery body to oversee the works at Euston and its surroundings. The Department recognised that setting up new organisations is far more complex and difficult than is often thought, and that its experience with HS2 Ltd demonstrates that it is difficult to set up high–functioning new organisations delivering extremely complex infrastructure. However, the Department told us that the task at Euston is quite different to HS2 Ltd’s core mission of building a railway. The Department explained that the challenge at Euston is more complex, with more moving parts and different opportunities within it, such as attracting private investment, which is a different skill set and poses a different set of technical challenges.58
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's recommendation and commits to providing an update on progress at Euston in its next six-monthly report to Parliament, expected in Summer 2025.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
40
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
However, the Department told us that overall decisions need to be made on future rail investment first. It explained that the government’s long– term strategy being developed for strategic rail investment, including on improvements to rail connectivity in the north of England, may affect what land is bought or sold …
Read more
However, the Department told us that overall decisions need to be made on future rail investment first. It explained that the government’s long– term strategy being developed for strategic rail investment, including on improvements to rail connectivity in the north of England, may affect what land is bought or sold or safeguarded. It expects the timetable for decisions to be made on the strategy “as a matter of months, not a matter of years”. There was some land that it was very confident would not be required under any plausible scheme, and so it would look to release those in a “sensible and sensitive way, so that communities don’t suffer that 66 C&AG’s Report, para 2.12 and Fig 4 67 Committee of Public Accounts, HS2 and Euston, Tenth Report of Session 2023–24, HC 67, 7 February 2024 68 Department for Transport, HS2 6-monthly report to Parliament: December 2024, 17 December 2024 22 detriment, and so the Exchequer gets the revenue back” 69 The Department expects that fully disposing of land and property no longer needed will take several years to complete.70
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the conclusion, stating that preparatory work for a Phase 2 land disposal programme is underway, and it will include its approach to addressing future West Coast Main Line capacity and northern rail connectivity in a future six-monthly report, following the outcome …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
43
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
The HS2 programme was originally intended to improve capacity on the West Coast Main Line. However, with the cancellation of Phase 2, the revised programme will only address capacity between London and Birmingham. The Department is exploring options to run longer HS2 trains north of Birmingham, but this would require …
Read more
The HS2 programme was originally intended to improve capacity on the West Coast Main Line. However, with the cancellation of Phase 2, the revised programme will only address capacity between London and Birmingham. The Department is exploring options to run longer HS2 trains north of Birmingham, but this would require additional works at existing stations.73 Further options for addressing capacity issues include managing demand for rail services or investing in infrastructure such as additional tracks and longer platforms.74
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the 'recommendation'. While preparatory work on a Phase 2 land disposal programme is underway, they will include their approach to addressing future West Coast Main Line capacity issues and northern rail connectivity in a future six-monthly report, following the spending review …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
44
Conclusion
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
The Department acknowledged the capacity challenge on the West Coast Main Line as a consequence of not building Phase 2, estimating that it will reach capacity by the late 2030s. These capacity concerns were also raised with us in evidence from Manchester City Council, Transport for Greater Manchester and the …
Read more
The Department acknowledged the capacity challenge on the West Coast Main Line as a consequence of not building Phase 2, estimating that it will reach capacity by the late 2030s. These capacity concerns were also raised with us in evidence from Manchester City Council, Transport for Greater Manchester and the High Speed Rail Group.75 The Department 69 Qq 56–57; Prime Minister’s Office, The King’s Speech 2024, pages 42–43 70 C&AG’s Report, para 2.16 71 Qq 54–57; C&AG’s Report, Fig 2 72 Ibid 73 C&AG’s Report, para 4.20 74 C&AG’s Report, para 4.21 75 HS2U0007, Written evidence submitted by Manchester City Council; HS2U0009, Written evidence submitted by Transport for Greater Manchester; HS2U0005, Written evidence submitted by the High Speed Rail Group 23 told us that the government is considering what options exist for dealing with capacity north of Birmingham in future years. While there would not be a reinstatement of the northern sections of HS2, the Department said these options could include smaller–scale investments in infrastructure or optimising services using both existing and HS2 trains, although the latter would only delay the problem rather than resolve it.76
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the conclusion, stating it will include its approach to addressing future West Coast Main Line capacity issues and northern rail connectivity in a future six-monthly report, following the outcome of the spending review.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
47
Recommendation
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
However, the Committee has needed to recommend repeatedly that the Department and HS2 Ltd improve the degree they reflect on past or current experiences and implement any lessons. In 2020, the previous Committee made clear its dissatisfaction: 80 “Given the repeated emergence of issues across the Department’s major programmes, we …
Read more
However, the Committee has needed to recommend repeatedly that the Department and HS2 Ltd improve the degree they reflect on past or current experiences and implement any lessons. In 2020, the previous Committee made clear its dissatisfaction: 80 “Given the repeated emergence of issues across the Department’s major programmes, we are not satisfied that the Department is yet embedding the lessons it has learned to date.”
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government commits to learning lessons and has identified key lessons, aiming to implement them during the HS2 programme reset. It will write to the Committee outlining key areas of lessons and provide further updates in the next Parliamentary report by Summer 2025.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
48
Recommendation
10th Report - HS2: Update following the…
Deferred
The previous Public Accounts Committee also concluded in its 2023 report on HS2 Euston that it was another example of the Department making the same mistakes and failing to learn lessons from its management of other major rail programmes, highlighting the need for more work on cost estimation, the treatment …
Read more
The previous Public Accounts Committee also concluded in its 2023 report on HS2 Euston that it was another example of the Department making the same mistakes and failing to learn lessons from its management of other major rail programmes, highlighting the need for more work on cost estimation, the treatment of contingency and managing the integration of complex projects.81 78 Committee of Public Accounts, High Speed 2: Spring 2020 update, Third Report of Session 2019–21, HC 84, 17 May 2020 79 Committee of Public Accounts, HS2 and Euston, Tenth Report of Session 2023–24, HC 67, 7 February 2024 80 Committee of Public Accounts, High Speed 2: Spring 2020 update, Third Report of Session 2019–21, HC 84, 17 May 2020; 81 Committee of Public Accounts, HS2 Euston, Sixty–third Report of Session 2022–23, HC 1004, 7 July 2023 25
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government commits to learning lessons and has identified key lessons, aiming to implement them during the HS2 programme reset. It will write to the Committee outlining key areas of lessons and provide further updates in the next Parliamentary report by Summer 2025.
Read full response →
HM Treasury