HS2 explained: What is it and why are parts being delayed?

Published

8 months ago

September 28, 2023

admin

HS2 is the UK’s biggest infrastructure project, supposed to transform public transport between London, the Midlands and the North.

But it is becoming synonymous with political football, disappointment, delays and spiralling costs.

It’s been backed by more than one government and political party over the years but Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has declined to throw his support behind the full project, resulting in fears the Manchester part of the line could be scrapped.

It’s the latest setback after the March announcement that parts of the line will be delayed, prompting questions of whether the UK is capable of delivering large infrastructure projects.

Interventions from five regional Labour mayors and numerous northern businesses have done their best to retain the current plans.

What is HS2?

HS2 is 330 miles of planned high-speed rail network, initially intended to link London and the West Midlands, stretching to Birmingham, with a further phase extending to Crewe, Manchester and Leeds in the North. Cost concerns in 2021 led to the shelving of the Leeds stretch.

It was first mooted by the Labour government in 2009.

The project has been beset by delays and rising costs, with some estimates now putting the price tag at more than £180bn, a figure that’s continuously risen from the 2019 estimate. In 2019 costs were put at around £100bn.

How much was it supposed to cost?

The original bill – at 2009 prices – was supposed to be £37.5bn.

At the time of the 2010 election, when David Cameron said his government would publish plans for a high speed rail, £20bn was committed for rail infrastructure.

By January 2012, when the broad route of the proposed scheme was in place, this had risen to £32.6bn.

In June 2013, the coalition government increased the overall cost to £42.6bn and in November 2015, when the figures were updated, in line with inflation, to £55.7bn.

The Department for Transport’s latest estimate in 2021 had spiralled even higher, to between £72bn and £98bn.

But Lord Berkeley, former deputy chairman of the government’s independent review into the project, said it could climb to £107bn.

It could be the 2040s before passenger services are operating on the full network.

New stations and 18 trains an hour

HS2’s inception follows the development of HS1, the high-speed line between London and Kent connecting the UK to routes on the European continent.

The aim is to run 18 trains an hour in each direction to and from London – at speeds of up to 224mph – compared to between two and six an hour on Europe’s high-speed railways.

It involves the construction of more than 300 bridges and 70 viaducts for the London-West Midlands phase alone.

There will also, under current plans, be new stations – including Birmingham Curzon Street and extensions for London Euston and Manchester Piccadilly.

The project is designed to meet the long-term growth in demand for rail services, improve the reliability of the network, boost connectivity by making journeys faster and easier, and help economic growth across the UK.

What is the route?

Stations on the first phase of the line will be London Euston, Old Oak Common in west London, Birmingham interchange and Birmingham Curzon Street. There are, however, concerns the London Euston station terminus will be axed as it’s been put on pause due to spiralling costs.

The line will instead end in Old Oak Common, requiring passengers to get the Elizabeth Line to central London.

This means it could be more than a decade before high-speed services stop at Euston, with passengers expected instead to travel for half an hour on the Elizabeth Line.

The second phase will see trains head northwest to Manchester Airport and Manchester Piccadilly, or use existing lines via Wigan, Crewe and Stafford.

The route had also been planned to go northeast from Birmingham towards the East Midlands Hub at Toton.

From there, before the eastern extension was cancelled, the trains were due to continue on the HS2 line to Leeds, with others diverging onto existing lines via Chesterfield and York.

Delays to the Crewe-northwest section were also placed for two years.

Where did it all begin?

In 2009, under Labour transport secretary Geoff Hoon, the government set up a company, HS2 Ltd, to look at proposals for a new high-speed line.

The following year, the Department for Transport (DfT) set out plans for a Y-shaped network connecting London and the cities in the North.

Later, under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, it was confirmed that the line would be built in two phases.

Phase 1 would run from London to the West Midlands, beginning in 2026. That’s been pushed back to between 2029 and 2033. Euston Station is not due to open until 2035.

Phase 2, extending from the West Midlands to cities in the North, would start in 2032-33. But that’s been moved to any time from 2034 and 2041.

Why is HS2 so behind schedule?

By July 2019, the government accepted that the timetable was no longer feasible and has continued to change opening times.

Reasons for the delay included a year spent revising cost and schedule estimates for phase 1 and more time being needed for construction at various sites.

In August 2019, the government announced an independent review of the programme to advise on whether to proceed.

And in March of this year the government announced more construction would be delayed by two years to save money.

The COVID-19 pandemic probably didn’t help with progress, either.

In a written ministerial statement earlier this year, Transport Secretary Mark Harper said the government is “prioritising HS2’s initial services” between Old Oak Common in west London and Birmingham Curzon Street.

Why have the costs risen so much?

In one word: inflation.

Mr Harper already said earlier this year, “we have seen significant inflationary pressure and increased project costs, and so we will rephase construction by two years, with an aim to deliver high-speed services to Crewe and the North West as soon as possible after accounting for the delay in construction”.

A report in January 2020 by the National Audit Office (NAO) – the spending watchdog – said HS2 Ltd had not accounted for the level of uncertainty and risk in the plans.

It used a method for calculating how much extra might be needed “that was not appropriate for a programme at such an early stage of development”.

Among the factors causing higher costs were commitments to increase the length of tunnelling and to erect noise barriers.

The NAO said the government and HS2 Ltd had “not adequately managed risks to taxpayer money”.

More money was needed for building bridges, tunnels and stations than first thought.

Complex issues involving the discovery of asbestos and archaeological remains, and the need to divert more gas and power lines than expected, have caused problems too.

More money was also needed to buy properties to make way for the rail line.

Even after these have been accounted for, there is uncertainty around the cost of extending London’s Euston station to accommodate the high-speed trains.

Politics

UK to get at least 25 new warships due to defence spending rise – Shapps

Published

1 hour ago

May 14, 2024

admin

UK to get at least 25 new warships due to defence spending rise - Shapps

The Royal Navy will get 25 new warships – and could get three more – as the government indicates where its planned rise in defence spending will go.

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps told Sky News there are 28 new ships and submarines in the design or construction stage at the moment for the UK’s armed forces.

He said 22 ships are “already in the system” – but there is less clarity over six new warships he announced for the Royal Marines today.

The defence secretary said that the government is committing to three of the new “versatile” ships for the Marines, “and then possibly another three as well”. He later said the final three are “in the design phase”.

He also announced two of the ships being built – type 26 and 31 frigates – will be equipped with land-attack missiles so they will be capable of attacking targets on shore.

Mr Shapps said this is a “very, very large shipbuilding programme, a lot of warships, the golden era of shipbuilding here”.

He added: “It’s all possible because just last month we agreed as a government to spend 2.5% of our GDP on our defence sector because we think it’s very, very important to make sure that those who would seek to do us harm are put off, that they are dissuaded because they can see that we’re serious about our defence.”

Labour has pledged to reach 2.5% of GDP on defence spending when economic conditions allow it, while the Conservatives have said they would reach that number by 2030.

But defence spending fell in the early years of the Conservative government, which has been in power for 14 years, and spending was not boosted when Ukraine was invaded in 2014 or 2022.

Mr Shapps said the Tory pledge is different to Labour’s because the Conservatives have “set out a timeline”.

“We’ve also said how we would go about largely funding this, and that’s by reducing the size of the civil service, which is much bigger than it was before COVID,” he said.

“We want to get it back down to the size it was before and use that money to spend on defence.

“I have to say, as defence secretary, with everything that I know in this role, that I think that the Labour position presents a danger to this country because it will send a signal to our adversaries that we’re not serious about our defence if we won’t set out that timetable.”

More politics:
Rwanda law to be ‘disapplied’ in N Ireland
MPs to be barred from parliament after serious arrests

Labour’s shadow work and pensions minister Alison McGovern said she is “sceptical” about the Conservatives’ claim about how they will fund the spending rise.

She said Labour has had to pledge the rise for when the economy allows “because of what the Conservative Party have done to our economy” – as she accused Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak of implementing “big unfunded tax cuts”.

Ms McGovern added: “I think everybody would expect Rachel Reeves as the shadow chancellor to say, well, we will make our plans when we’ve got access to all of the books, all of the details of Ministry of Defence spending.”

Mr Shapps said the government did not spend as much on defence previously because countries such as China, North Korea, Iran and Russia were not such a threat.

The defence secretary added: “We were living in very, very different times.”

He said the government has also added £24bn to the defence budget over the past couple of years and the UK is “by a country mile the largest spender on defence in Europe, with the second largest in NATO after only the US”.

Discussing the UK’s current fleet, Mr Shapps said sister ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark are due to come out of service in 2033-2034 but the defence secretary said they will not be scrapped before that.

Albion and Bulwark are currently used as the Royal Navy’s landing platform docks to transport the Royal Marines.

Mr Shapps also announced HMS Argyll and HMS Westminster, two frigates with a combined service of 63 years, are to be retired, with HMS Argyll sold to BAE Systems to be used to support apprentice shipbuilder training.

The new ships being built include Type 26 and Type 31 frigates in Scotland, Astute and Dreadnought submarines in Barrow-in-Furness, and Fleet Solid Support ships in Belfast and Devon.

Politics

Graduate visa route should remain, report finds, after home secretary raised immigration concerns

Published

1 hour ago

May 14, 2024

admin

Graduate visa route should remain, report finds, after home secretary raised immigration concerns

The graduate visa route should remain as it is key to funding British universities and is “not undermining the quality and integrity” of higher education, a new report has said.

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) looked at whether the visa was being abused and if it was not being “driven more by a desire for immigration” after Home Secretary James Cleverly requested an emergency review in March.

A graduate visa permits overseas students to stay in the UK for up to three years after completing a university course in the UK. Partners and children can also apply as dependents.

Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick published a report last week calling for the graduate visa to be abolished, claiming it “allowed people to come and work in the gig economy and on very low wages”.

University and industry leaders had voiced fears that the route, introduced in 2021, could be axed or curtailed if the report had been negative, with universities reporting a steep drop in international students applying over fears of restrictions being introduced.

But the committee, made up of five university professors and a Home Office representative, said they found “no evidence of widespread abuse” of the graduate route.

“The risks of abuse are relatively low due to the limited number of conditions the route imposes,” the report said.

It also found the visa route is helping universities to expand the range of courses offered while making up for financial losses from domestic students and research, and is “supporting the government’s international educational strategy”.

The report said 114,000 graduate route visas were granted for applicants in 2023, with a further 30,000 for dependents.

It said students from India, Nigeria, China and Pakistan account for 70% of all graduate visas, with India accounting for more than 40%.

MAC chair and leading labour economist Professor Brian Bell, the head of economics at King’s College London, said: “Our review recommends the graduate route should remain as it is, and is not undermining the quality and integrity of the UK’s higher education system.

“The graduate route is a key part of the offer that we make to international students to come and study in the UK.

“The fees that these students pay help universities to cover the losses they make in teaching British students and doing research.

“Without those students, many universities would need to shrink and less research would be done.

“This highlights the complex interaction between immigration policy and higher education policy.”

A government spokesman said: “We are committed to attracting the best and brightest to study at our world-class universities, whilst preventing abuse of our immigration system, which is why the home secretary commissioned an independent review of the graduate route.

“We have already taken decisive action to address unsustainable levels of migration and our plans are working, with a 24% drop in visa applications across key routes in the first three months of this year, compared with the same period last year.

“We are considering the review’s findings very closely and we will respond fully in due course.”

Reacting to the report, Mr Jenrick said the graduate route “should be scrapped” and the UK needs to “urgently unwind the sector’s growing dependency on foreign students” as he called the route a “backdoor for foreign students to do low-wage work…that isn’t attracting top talent”.

He said the review’s conclusions were “constrained by the narrow terms of reference deliberately set by the government” to back up their International Education Strategy that includes the “arbitrary target” of attracting 600,000 foreign students a year.

“If you order white paint, you get a whitewash,” he said.

The report found most people on the graduate route had completed postgraduate courses, with the highest growth in the visa from non-Russell Group universities’ postgraduate courses – accounting for 66% of all graduate visas.

Since 2021, the proportion of main applicants aged over 25 has increased by 15 percentage points to 54% in 2023.

It also found graduate visa holders are initially overrepresented in lower-paid work but their job prospects and wages improve over time.

Among the first cohort of graduate visa holders, about half moved to skilled worker visas, primarily into skilled roles.

Politics

Commons approves plans to exclude from parliament MPs arrested on suspicion of serious offence

Published

1 hour ago

May 14, 2024

admin

Commons approves plans to exclude from parliament MPs arrested on suspicion of serious offence

MPs arrested on suspicion of a serious offence face being barred from parliament under new plans approved in a vote on Monday night.

It comes despite the government putting forward a motion that recommended MPs only face a ban if they are charged with a violent or sexual offence – a higher bar.

On Monday night, MPs voted to reverse government moves to water down the measures on “risk-based exclusions” to ensure members can be excluded from parliament at the point of arrest for serious sexual or violent offences, in line with the original recommendation from the House of Commons Commission.

The commission’s initial proposal was later revised by the government to raise the threshold for a potential ban to the point of charge.

But in a surprise move, MPs voted 170 to 169, a majority of one, in favour of an amendment by Lib Dem MP Wendy Chamberlain and Labour MP Jess Phillips to reinstate the original intention of the policy.

MPs were given a free vote on the matter, meaning they were not forced to vote along party lines.

Politics latest: Court ruling ‘blows PM’s claims about Rwanda plan out of the water’

The division list showed eight Conservative MPs voted in favour of the opposition amendment, including safeguarding minister Laura Farris, former prime minister Theresa May and backbench MP Theresa Villiers.

Ms Villiers was herself recommended for a suspension from the Commons for one day in 2021 after she and several other Conservative MPs breached the code of conduct by trying to influence a judge in the trial of former MP Charlie Elphicke, who was convicted in 2020 of sexually assaulting two women and jailed for two years.

The result means those who have been arrested on suspicion of a violent or sexual offence will be banned from parliament, pending the approval of an independent panel.

Mike Clancy, the general secretary of the Prospect trade union, said the outcome was an “important and overdue victory for common-sense and those working on the parliamentary estate”, while FDA general secretary Dave Penman added: “Parliament is a workplace for thousands and these new formal procedures give staff the safe working environment they deserve and would expect in any other workplace.”

Ms Phillips, who advocated for the case for exclusion at the point of arrest, wrote on X: “Shit! We won the vote by one.”

In the debate preceding the vote, she told the Commons: “Today, just on this one day, I have spoken to two women who were raped by members of this parliament; that’s a fairly standard day for me.

“Exclusion at the point of charge sends a clear message to victims that not only will we not investigate unless a victim goes to the police but we won’t act unless they’re charged, which happens in less than 1% of cases. ‘So what’s the point?’ was essentially what this victim said to me.”

No hiding place for suspected Commons sex pests

Jon Craig

Chief political correspondent

@joncraig

In a dramatic knife-edge vote, MPs have voted that there should be no hiding place for suspected Commons sex pests.

Former prime minister Theresa May led a small group of eight Conservatives voting with Opposition MPs to defy the Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt.

To the fury of many Opposition MPs, Ms Mordaunt wanted MPs accused of serious sex or violent offences to be barred from parliament only when they’re charged.

It was officially a free vote. But the vast bulk of MPs voting to delay a ban until a charge were Conservatives, including several Cabinet ministers.

That was brave, so close to a general election. Surely those MPs who voted against a ban upon arrest will be attacked by their political opponents at the election for being soft on suspected sex pests?

The timing of the vote was perhaps unfortunate, coming amid renewed controversy earlier this week over sex pest Charlie Elphicke, the former Conservative MP who was jailed for sex offences.

At the weekend his ex-wife Natalie, who defected from the Conservatives to Labour last week, was accused of lobbying a former justice secretary, Sir Robert Buckland, on his behalf, an allegation she dismissed as “nonsense”.

And despite missing the weekly meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party earlier, Ms Elphicke duly voted with her new colleagues for a ban which would have almost certainly penalised her ex-husband had it been in force.

After the vote, leading supporters of the arrest ban were jubilant and stunned by the closeness of the vote. “Incredible!” Labour’s Stella Creasy told Sky News. Mr Rees-Mogg, however, condemned the proposal as a “power grab”.

It’s a historic vote. It doesn’t matter how close it was. Accusers will argue they’re now better protected. And MPs who supported the tougher ban argue that it brings the Commons into line with other workplaces.

Well, up to a point. MPs still have many perks and privileges that other employers and employees don’t. And Parliament still has a long way to go before its working practices and grievance procedures are brought fully up to date.

The exclusion policy was put forward following a number of incidents involving MPs in recent years and concerns about the safety of those working in parliament.

Currently, party whips decide if and when an MP accused of an offence should be prevented from attending the parliamentary estate.

Under the new plans, a risk assessment will take place when the Clerk of the House is informed by the police that an MP has been arrested on suspicion of committing a violent or sexual offence.

The risk assessment will be carried out by a risk assessment panel, appointed by Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle.

Commons leader Penny Mordaunt cited the “large” number of “vexatious” claims lodged against colleagues as a reason to require a member to be charged before exclusion.

Former minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg used the debate to describe the exclusion plans as an “extraordinary power grab by standing orders to undermine a fundamental of our constitution”, while Sir Michael Ellis, a former attorney general, said: “A person must not suffer imposition before guilt has been proven.”