Connect with us

Published

on

Rishi Sunak’s plan to build HS2 between London and Birmingham but not extend it to Manchester will be “very poor value for money”, cross-party MPs have warned.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which examines government spending, said there are “many uncertainties” in the assessment that it was better to complete Phase 1 of the project than cancel the whole thing.

The group also said it is “highly sceptical” that the Department for Transport (DfT) will be able to attract the private investment needed for the planned central London terminus at Euston.

The report stated: “HS2 now offers very poor value for money to the taxpayer, and the department and HS2 Ltd do not yet know what it expects the final benefits of the programme to be.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Transport said they disagreed with the committee’s assessment.

It comes as the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, and his Labour counterpart in Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, are due to hold an event on Wednesday to outline their plans to work with private investors on improving rail in the North and Midlands.

The prime minister made the controversial decision to scrap the northern leg of the high speed rail project last year amid ballooning prices.

More on Hs2

The estimated cost of building HS2 between London and Birmingham could be as high as £67bn, according to HS2 Ltd, up from a budget of £44.6bn in 2019.

The original bill for the whole project – at 2009 prices – was supposed to be £37.5bn.

The PAC report said there are many “unknown ramifications” of the decision to scale back the railway, ranging from how land and property no longer needed will be disposed of, impacts on other rail projects dependent on the cancelled phases, what will be delivered with the money saved, and how HS2 trains will operate on existing lines.

The report said the DfT have acknowledged to the committee that the total costs of building Phase 1 “will significantly outweigh benefits”, but officials have judged that continuing with that section “was value for money”, partly due to avoiding £11bn of costs that would be incurred from cancellation.

However, the report said: “There are many uncertainties in this assessment and we were left with little assurance over the calculations.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Burnham: HS2 plan ‘doesn’t make sense’

Mr Sunak’s October 2023 announcement also included a new plan to rely on private investment to extend HS2 from Old Oak Common in the suburbs of west London to Euston, near the centre of the capital.

This is aimed at saving £6.5bn of taxpayers’ money.

Read More:
HS2 explained – what is the route and why has leg been axed?
Transport secretary to look at HS2 revival plans with ‘open mind’

But the PAC said: “We are… highly sceptical that the department will be able to attract private investment on the scale and speed required to make the London terminus station a success.”

Dame Meg Hillier, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, said: “HS2 is the biggest ticket item by value on the government’s books for infrastructure projects.

“As such, it was crying out for a steady hand at the tiller from the start.

“But, here we are after over a decade of our warnings on HS2’s management and spiralling costs, locked into the costly completion of a curtailed rump of a project and many unanswered questions and risks still attached to delivery of even this curtailed project.”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

The move to ditch the northern leg of HS2 was highly controversial, triggering a backlash from Tory grandees, regional leaders, businesses and the rail industry.

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

Last month, HS2 Ltd executive chairman Sir Jon Thompson said reasons for the cost increase include original budgets being too low, changes to scope, lower than expected productivity, weak contractual models and inflation.

In response to the PAC report, a spokesperson for the company said they have been “clear about the cost challenges”, adding: “HS2 Ltd is now under new leadership and implementing changes across the programme aimed at controlling costs and learning the lessons of the past.”

A DfT spokesperson said: “We disagree with the Committee’s assessment.

“Our plans for Euston have already received extensive support from the private sector to invest and will offer a world class regeneration opportunity, mirroring the successful King’s Cross and Battersea and Nine Elms development programmes.

“The Permanent Secretary has already written to the Committee chair setting out her assessment on value for money, and we have repeatedly made clear we will continue to deliver HS2 at the lowest reasonable cost, in a way that provides value for taxpayers.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Peers back assisted dying bill – but battles lie ahead

Published

on

By

Peers back assisted dying bill - but battles lie ahead

The controversial assisted dying bill is still very much alive, having received a second reading in the House of Lords without a vote.

But that doesn’t tell the whole story. Day two of debate on the bill in the Lords was just as passionate and emotional as the first, a week earlier.

And now comes the hard part for supporters of Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, as opponents attempt to make major changes in the months ahead.

The Lords’ chamber was again packed for the debate, which this time began at 10am and lasted nearly six hours. In all, during 13 hours of debate over two days, nearly 200 peers spoke.

According to one estimate, over both days of the debate only around 50 peers spoke in favour of the bill and considerably more than 100 against, with only a handful neutral.

The bill proposes allowing terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death. Scotland’s parliament has already passed a similar law.

Pro-assisted dying campaigners outside parliament earlier this month. Pic: PA
Image:
Pro-assisted dying campaigners outside parliament earlier this month. Pic: PA

In a safeguard introduced in the Commons, an application would have to be approved by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior lawyer and psychiatrist.

The bill’s sponsor in the Lords, Charlie Falconer, said while peers have “a job of work to do”, elected MPs in the Commons should have the final decision on the bill, not unelected peers.

One of the most contentious moments in the first day of debate last Friday was a powerful speech by former Tory prime minister Theresa May, who said the legislation was a “licence to kill” bill.

That claim prompted angry attacks on the former PM when the debate resumed from Labour peers, who said it had left them dismayed and caused distress to many terminally ill people.

The former PM, daughter of a church of England vicar, had claimed in her speech that the proposed law was an “assisted suicide bill” and “effectively says suicide is OK”.

But opening the second day’s debate, Baroness Thornton, a lay preacher and health minister in Tony Blair’s government, said: “People have written to me in the last week, very distressed.

“They say things such as: ‘We are not suicidal – we want to live – but we are dying, and we do not have the choice or ability to change that. Assisted dying is not suicide’.”

Throughout the criticism of her strong opposition to the bill, the former PM sat rooted to her seat, not reacting visibly but looking furious as her critics attacked her.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Assisted Dying: Reflections at the end of life

There was opposition to the bill, too, from grandees of the Thatcher and Major cabinets. Lord Deben, formerly John Gummer and an ex-member of the Church of England synod, said the bill “empowers the state to kill”.

And Lord Chris Patten, former Tory chairman, Hong Kong governor and Oxford University chancellor, said it was an “unholy legislative mess” and could lead to death becoming the “default solution to perceived suffering”.

Read more:
Paralympian targeted with abuse for opposing assisted dying bill
The assisted dying debate has been politics – but not as we know it

Day two of the debate also saw an unholy clash between Church of England bishops past and present, with former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey claiming opponents led by Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell were out of touch with public opinion.

While a large group of bishops sat in their full robes on their benches, Lord Carey suggested both the Church and the Lords would “risk our legitimacy by claiming that we know better than both the public” and the Commons.

“Do we really want to stand in the way of this bill?” he challenged peers. “It will pass, whether in this session or the next. It has commanding support from the British public and passed the elected House after an unprecedented period of scrutiny.”

But Archbishop Cottrell hit back, declaring he was confident he represented “views held by many, not just Christian leaders, but faith leaders across our nation in whom I’ve been in discussion and written to me”.

And he said the bill was wrong “because it ruptures relationships” and would “turbocharge” the agonising choices facing poor and vulnerable people.

A campaigner in opposition of the bill. Pic: PA
Image:
A campaigner in opposition of the bill. Pic: PA

One of the most powerful speeches came from former Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, awarded a peerage by Rishi Sunak after a dramatic Commons comeback after losing his arms and legs after a bout of sepsis.

He shocked peers by revealing that in Belgium, terminally ill children as young as nine had been euthanised. “I’m concerned we want to embed an option for death in the NHS when its modus operandi should be for life,” he said.

And appearing via video link, a self-confessed “severely disabled” Tory peer, Kevin Shinkwin, was listened to in a stunned silence as he said the legislation amounted to the “stuff of nightmares”.

He said it would give the state “a licence to kill the wrong type of people”, adding: “I’m the wrong type. This bill effectively puts a price on my head.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Assisted Dying vote: Both sides react

After the debate, Labour peer and former MP Baroness Luciana Berger, an opponent of the bill, claimed a victory after peers accepted her proposal to introduce a special committee to examine the bill and report by 7 November.

“The introduction of a select committee is a victory for those of us that want proper scrutiny of how these new laws would work, the massive changes they could make to the NHS and how we treat people at the end of their lives,” she told Sky News.

“It’s essential that as we look at these new laws we get a chance to hear from those government ministers and professionals that would be in charge of creating and running any new assisted dying system.”

After the select committee reports, at least four sitting Fridays in the Lords have been set aside for all peers – a Committee of the whole house – to debate the bill and propose amendments.

Report stage and third reading will follow early next year, then the bill goes back to the Commons for debate on any Lords amendments. There’s then every chance of parliamentary ping pong between the two Houses.

Kim Leadbeater’s bill may have cleared an important hurdle in the Lords. But there’s still a long way to go – and no doubt a fierce battle ahead – before it becomes law.

Continue Reading

Politics

UK and Ireland agree deal to address ‘unfinished business’ of the Troubles

Published

on

By

UK and Ireland agree deal to address 'unfinished business' of the Troubles

The UK and Irish governments have agreed a new framework to address the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles.

The framework, announced by Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn and the Irish deputy prime minister, Simon Harris, at Hillsborough Castle on Friday, replaces the controversial Legacy Act, introduced by the Conservative government.

“I believe that this framework, underpinned by new co-operation from both our governments, represents the best way forward to finally make progress on the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement,” said Mr Benn.

He added that it would allow the families of victims killed during violence in Northern Ireland between the 1960s and 1990s, to “find the answers they have long been seeking”.

The proposed framework includes a dedicated Legacy Commission to investigate deaths during the Troubles, a resumption of inquests regarding cases from the conflict which were halted by the Legacy Act.

There will also be a separate truth recovery mechanism, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, jointly funded by London and Dublin.

“Dealing with the legacy of the Troubles is hard, and that is why it has been for so long the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement,” said Mr Benn.

More on Politics

Mr Harris described the framework as a “night and day improvement” on the previous act. Scrapping the Legacy Act, introduced in 2023, was a Labour government pledge.

What this means

A section of the Legacy Act offered immunity from prosecution for ex-soldiers and militants who cooperate with a new investigative body. This provision was ruled incompatible with human rights law.

The 2023 law was opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland, including pro-British and Irish nationalist groups.

The agreement replaces a controversial law. (Pic: PA)
Image:
The agreement replaces a controversial law. (Pic: PA)

The Irish government, which brought a legal challenge against Britain at the European Court of Human Rights, also opposed it.

Both governments said the new plans will ensure it is possible to refer cases for potential prosecutions.

Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government had pledged to improve relations with Ireland. (Pic: PA)
Image:
Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government had pledged to improve relations with Ireland. (Pic: PA)

It will ‘take time’ to win families’ confidence

Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Harris, said in a statement that the framework could deliver on Ireland’s two tests of being human rights-compliant and securing the support of victims’ families, if implemented in good faith.

He added that winning the confidence of victims’ families would take time.

Dublin will revisit its legal challenge against Britain if the tests are met, it said.

Restoring strained relations

The UK’s Labour government had sought to reset relations with Ireland, after they were damaged by the process of Britain leaving the European Union.

The Conservative government had defended its previous approach, arguing prosecutions were unlikely to lead to convictions, and that it wanted to draw a line under the conflict.

A number of trials have collapsed in recent years, but the first former British soldier to be convicted of an offence since the peace deal was given a suspended sentenced in 2023.

Continue Reading

Politics

Gary Gensler doubles down on crypto approach amid SEC sea change

Published

on

By

Gary Gensler doubles down on crypto approach amid SEC sea change

Gary Gensler doubles down on crypto approach amid SEC sea change

The former SEC chair and Paul Atkins, the current head of the agency, both made media appearance this week to address significant policies proposed by US President Donald Trump.

Continue Reading

Trending