Transport Committee
Oral evidence: HS2: progress update, HC 85
Thursday 30 November 2023, Birmingham.
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 30 November 2023.
Members present: Iain Stewart (Chair); Jack Brereton; Grahame Morris; Greg Smith.
Questions 345–392
Witnesses
II: Huw Merriman MP, Minister for Rail and HS2, Department for Transport; and Alan Over, Director General, High Speed Rail Group, Department for Transport.
Witnesses: Huw Merriman and Alan Over.
Q345 Chair: I invite our second panel to come forward, please. Thank you. Could I ask our second panel to introduce themselves for the record, please?
Huw Merriman: Good afternoon, Chairman. I am the Minister of State for Transport, covering rail and HS2.
Alan Over: I am Director General for High Speed Rail at the Department for Transport.
Chair: Thank you both. I should also add that we were due to have joining us Sir Jon Thompson, the executive chair of HS2 Ltd. Unfortunately he is unwell and cannot join us, but we will be inviting him back at a later date to put some of the questions that we wanted to ask this afternoon.
We are here to discuss HS2 but, Minister, I understand you first want to make a brief comment on today’s announcement of the settlement of one of the rail industrial actions.
Huw Merriman: That is very kind, Chair. I know that the Committee has followed this matter and has been concerned about the amount of industrial action on the railways, as have we inside government, so we are delighted to see a positive step forward today for the railways with the settlement of the RMT national industrial action. We believe that this is a good deal between the taxpayer and the railway workers. Railway workers will now get a pay rise before Christmas and we now see that industrial action come to an end.
We have always been clear in government—the Secretary of State and I—that we wanted to facilitate a fair and reasonable pay offer. We felt that if that pay offer was put forward to members, it would be accepted. With 90% of those who voted voting in favour, it is an overwhelming acceptance, as the RMT has said.
I hope, taking that same precedent, the leadership of ASLEF will put forward a very similar deal to their members and we will see the same conclusion and then that that will be the end of all industrial action on the railways. Of course, I should just mention that reform is the next step with regards to discussions with the RMT. This deal paves the way for reform to be delivered and we hope thereafter a pay rise for this year will be in place for the RMT as well. We are very grateful to the RMT leadership and we very much hope for the same from the ASLEF leadership.
Q346 Chair: Thank you. Just before we move on to HS2, do any colleagues want to ask any questions on that? No? Thank you.
HS2 is the focus of our inquiry today. This session was scheduled as part of our regular six-monthly scrutiny process, but in the light of the Government's decision in October, we have been conducting some additional work on the topic. I would like to start with a point that a number of witnesses have made: by not progressing with phases 2a and 2b, if nothing else is done to the West Coast Main Line north of Handsacre, capacity will be very constricted and there will be not much, if any, additional space for passenger or freight services.
When I put that point to the Secretary of State a couple of weeks ago, he said there was no conclusive forecast as to what will happen to demand in the years ahead, but just this week, for example, we have seen from the ORR that passenger rail usage is up 40% in a year. Isn't it a bit premature to decide to cancel that part of HS2 without having alternative proposals in place to address likely future demand?
Huw Merriman: Chairman, it is certainly the case that as part of making these decisions we will need to look at capacity north of Birmingham. Network North addresses that and makes the commitment, particularly in connection to the Handsacre link, that capacity will need to be looked at. Of course capacity would have become more of an issue further south. I think sometimes people say, “Why was it the case that the railway was built south to north?” It was the particular part between Birmingham and London that would have seen the fastest capacity challenge, but none the less it is recognised that as you go further north, and particularly with more trains coming up through to Birmingham on the new HS2 phase 1 link, it does give us that challenge and that is a challenge that we obviously have to address.
In his evidence, the Secretary of State was talking about the reduction in usage post-Covid and particularly the reduction of business travel usage. I know you have had witnesses give perhaps differing views previously in terms of rail experts on whether that patronage will come back. I know one of the witnesses talked about the fact that younger members of the workforce in the future just won’t operate in the same way, so we are seeing some patterns where people are working from home and not needing to travel, and that will have to be fed into the entire mix. We do recognise that there will need to be an exercise on capacity north of Birmingham up towards Manchester as HS2 phase 1 is delivered. Alan, I don’t know if you want to touch on anything further.
Alan Over: It is the case that the current demand on the west coast corridor has dropped post-Covid and it has not yet recovered to the pre-Covid position. If the modelling extrapolates from that, even a return to trend growth that we previously saw—assuming there wasn’t a persistent change in usage patterns—would leave sufficient capacity such that there wasn't a problem until the mid to late 2030s. What I think the Government will be doing is looking very carefully at that rate of recovery and seeing where the trend goes. On that basis, the Government decided that there were more immediate transport priorities that were definitely in need of addressing now and made the strategic switch in investment.
Huw Merriman: One thing perhaps I would add, because I know the Secretary of State referenced the figures, is that we are almost doubling the capacity to 250,000 seats per day across the primary operator. It is also the case that you could end up 400-metre long trains, which themselves add capacity, even if you have not as many trains going through per hour as one may have seen with phase 2a and phase 2b. One of the concepts that our director of Northern Powerhouse Rail put forward was for trains potentially splitting, one on a path towards Manchester, and one towards Liverpool at Crewe. There will be a number of ideas that will have to be worked through, but we are keen to do just that.
Q347 Chair: I want to dig in a little bit further on this. There is certainly a debate about future demand levels, but the project is not just for the next few years; it is for decades and centuries ahead. We heard this afternoon that the structures here are being designed with a 120-year lifespan. Whether cancelling phase 2a and b was the right call or not, isn’t there a legitimate criticism that it was a premature decision before alternatives—whether that is extra capacity at Colwich Junction or double-tunnelling parts of the line—and different options were worked through first before cancelling phase 2a?
Huw Merriman: As Alan says, I think it comes down to political choices. The Government's was that as HS2 continued and the money continued to be spent, the business case was not as strong because of some of the changes that we have seen, business travelling being a prime example of that—if we are not seeing those numbers return then a decision had to be made. It is a question of trade-offs—that is readily accepted—and our position is that we were not able to deliver. What we were seeing, Chair, is certain projects that we wished to advance, which are being advanced in the Network North programme, we could not put forward because costs were increasing. You have seen the impact of inflation and other matters, which we will no doubt discuss. It meant as each day was taken, the opportunity to put forward those additional projects was lost.
A good example of that is the Ely freight project, which will benefit Felixstowe and rail freight. That is something that we, inside the Department, have wanted to see put forward for some time, but the cost was just getting taken away by HS2, which was taking a third of the budget and it was increasing. While I take your point about taking extra time, during that time more money is spent on HS2 and that would have meant that we would have been unable to spend the money on the other projects that I believe we can with Network North. It was a classic trade-off situation.
Q348 Chair: A criticism that has been made of the Network North proposals is that it is a collection of individual schemes and not a proper strategy that has been consolidated and thought through as a whole. Is that a fair criticism?
Huw Merriman: I wouldn't say it is a fair criticism because I think what the Government have tried to do is to look at where the moneys had been spent in the regions and then allocate that same amount. You see almost £20 billion going to the north, almost £10 billion going to the Midlands, where we are now, and the remainder going elsewhere in the country. That was the prime driver and I think that addresses the fairness part.
Take the piece in the north and what we are now able to do to Northern Powerhouse Rail. This Committee had long taken the view that Bradford had been missed out, but the current plan connects Bradford into the IRP, and provides £2 billion for a new station and a connection down to the line, which will reduce journey times to Manchester from 55 minutes to 30 minutes. It brings Sheffield into the Integrated Rail Plan and NPR with electrification to Manchester and Leeds, and it brings Hull in.
Additionally, if you look further across, which is a matter that I don’t think has been brought forward by this Committee or many others, there is the plan to deliver electrification to north Wales. Conscious that HS2 was always an England and Wales project, the benefits to Wales means that you continue even further west. There is that opportunity to look from Wales going all the way across to Hull and the benefits through there. I believe that with Northern Powerhouse, which will be enhanced, we have a brilliant opportunity to deliver better connectivity east to west, rather than looking north to south.
Q349 Chair: One final question from me at this point before I pass to colleagues. You mentioned that the Department will do some work looking at future demand forecasts and what other interventions might be required. Can you just flesh out a little bit more what the timescale of that is, what resources will be allocated to it, and when we might start to see some emerging conclusions?
Huw Merriman: It might be worth bringing Alan in to talk a bit more about Handsacre and some of the opportunities there. Within that, Chair, I don’t want to talk too far ahead, but I am also conscious that as we look at technology in the future, on east coast we are looking at digital signalling, which means rather than looking at trains going through blocks and waiting for one train to exit the block before the next can come in, the digitisation allows us to put more trains on without delivering more track. That is the type of thing I would like to see us look at in the future on west coast as well with the time we have.
Again, without wishing to be too date-focused in that sense, I am also minded that where people talk about capacity constraints, we were not going to get to the point of delivering phase 2b until 2041 in any event, so we were always going to have challenges with the capacity with the here and now. If it is okay, perhaps this might be a good time to talk about Handsacre interventions.
Alan Over: There are two bits of work that we doing. First, we continuously review the demand position using the data that we get from industry and the ORR and that is an ongoing process. We have teams that are continuously doing that, so that will proceed as normal. The thing that we are doing differently is some time-bound work to look urgently at how we make the best of the west coast corridor without HS2 and how we make sure that we give as much capacity and the best services, building on phase 1, but linking with the West Coast Main Line north of Handsacre.
We are looking at what interventions you might make with the infrastructure and also with the train service specification and the rolling stock to make sure that we make the best use of that capacity. We are doing that with HS2 Ltd, Network Rail and the Department working closely together. We should have some preliminary views in the coming months. We will need to advise Ministers on those and where we would want to make any additional investments or, indeed, where we might wish to move money from the infrastructure that we might not need on residual bits of phase 1.
Q350 Greg Smith: I will start with the issue of community engagement, community relations and HS2 Ltd’s attitude towards the communities that are affected by construction. I will start with a scenario that came up last night when we met parish councillors and Solihull borough councillors from the Meriden and Balsall Common area, which equally came up when we did this exercise as a Select Committee in my own constituency in May this year.
There seems to be a total unwillingness to act in even the most basic reasonable way when it comes to sensible suggestions. Last night we heard how a haul road was blocked from being used for a housing development in the area where it would make perfect sense for that haul road to be used for construction equipment. At Stoke House Farm in Stoke Mandeville in Buckinghamshire, Thames Water is being denied use of HS2 haul roads to conduct urgent maintenance work, which will put an even greater pressure on the owners of that farm in bringing Thames Water much closer to the residents.
Why is HS2 so difficult to work with when sensible suggestions are made by the local communities affected?
Huw Merriman: Mr Smith, I know that we have touched on some of these matters a lot through Parliament. I have always been very keen, as the HS2 Minister, to see where I can intervene and provide some assistance. I know that there has been a number of issues that are not always clearcut and that there is some disagreement as to whether the consent process has allowed HS2 to act in the manner that it has. I think it is right to say that where HS2 has had to push those matters to demonstrate that it does have the power and the consent from the Act to deliver, it can, but I have seen examples where I felt that perhaps a more commercial mindset needs to be taken. I continue to work with Sir Jon—and the Secretary of State is of the same view—that a commercial outcome not only delivers better value for money for the taxpayer, but ultimately delivers the outcome that the individual may be looking for. Equally, we have to make sure that, with a view of taxpayers’ money, there is a rigorous and proper process.
I can only say that I will continue to take up those matters. I am aware with the parishes—I spoke to the local MP previously—that there was an issue with a second highway usage and I believe that has now been resolved satisfactorily, but I know it took some time. I may have to look at the position that they laid out to you last night on whether they are satisfied with that outcome.
Q351 Greg Smith: I will turn to another issue that came up when we did this exercise six months ago and still exists. It is the way in which farmers are treated by HS2. When we were at the Buckinghamshire railway centre for an evidence session, examples were cited about land taken for HS2 works next to existing arable fields where the HS2 works caused a flood. I asked Mr Thurston when he appeared before us, before he departed the organisation, whether anyone within the organisation of HS2 Ltd or their contractors have any expertise in farming. He was unable to answer that question six months ago. Is anyone in a position to answer that question now?
Huw Merriman: You have made the point on behalf of farmers before and I absolutely recognise that, because you have a large rural constituency and indeed Theo Clarke, the Stafford MP, has. I am looking to organise a meeting with the NFU and farmers’ representatives with the Farming Minister—I spoke to him yesterday—so that we can hear the later concerns and particularly concerns with the release of land that is no longer required. I recognise the point and the challenge that the farming community raises and I am very keen to address that.
I think it is fair to say that of the land that HS2 has, about 81% has been let back out to be able to be utilised, but I want to make sure that we can better understand from the farming community what can be done with the land that is longer needed in either meanwhile use or to be put back to them when we go through that process.
Q352 Greg Smith: In the six months that have elapsed since this Committee last took evidence from you in Buckinghamshire and from Mr Thurston, who was then chief executive of HS2 Ltd, there was an example given of some land in the village of Turweston that had a temporary take on it for utility diversions. Those utility works are done and it is ready to be completed. That landowner has not satisfactorily legally got that strip of land back still. I appreciate everything you just said, Minister, but what has changed in those six months since that evidence was last presented to this Committee and you and HS2 Ltd were quizzed on it? What has actually changed?
Huw Merriman: I will have to take that back to HS2 Ltd, and Alan and I can do that for the Turweston example, but we know—and I don’t want to pre-empt it—that while it may look as if the land is not required any further, it can be less efficient to give it back and then find that we need to take it back for another reason. I know I am speculating by saying that, and you will probably tell me that is not the case for that particular matter, but that is why they all need to be looked at thoroughly. I am sorry if you were due a response back from HS2 and have not received one. I can assure you that you will, and therefore your constituent will, about the matter that you have just mentioned.
Q353 Greg Smith: I appreciate that. I raised the constituency case as an example that is widespread, as I understand from talking to other Members of Parliament that it is a widespread issue across all of phase 1.
I will turn to another issue that came up six months ago—again, the clue in my previous questions is that essentially we will get to the point of what has changed in those six months—which is the condition of roads. We heard last night from Solihull borough councillors and parish councillors in the Meriden constituency, and I equally know this still to be the case from own constituency, that councils are having to take on the huge pressure to repair roads that have become dangerous due to HS2 construction traffic on them. In the most part, those roads remain very dangerous, some resembling the surface of the moon. East West Rail is now—if I may put it this way—showing up HS2 by starting the resurfacing of a lot of roads, particularly in and around Buckinghamshire and the Bletchley area. Where is HS2 on this problem of fixing that which it has broken?
Huw Merriman: I am aware that there have been improvements in your constituency because when I was last there it was pointed out to me by your constituents that the roads had got a lot better. I can’t talk to exactly who is responsible because East West Rail has largely finished its operation now in your constituency, so they are on a position to make do for delivery. You and I have been involved in meetings with HS2, East West Rail and Buckinghamshire Council about money that has been allocated and how that money can be delivered. I am going to specifics, so I need to go back and see where the latest part is there, but I thought that there had been progress made between the bodies about the spending of some of that money. Alan, is there anything on Buckinghamshire?
Alan Over: No, Minister.
Huw Merriman: We will come back to you on that particular point.
Q354 Greg Smith: I appreciate that. It is becoming pressing and urgent, not least that there is the visibility in multiple parts of the country now where HS2 has rediverted roads. You and I walked up one when we visited about a year ago, where the fresh, silky-smooth realigned road is perfect right until the point you get to the end of the realignment and you drop back out on to the potholed roads that resemble a mogul run. I think it is important that HS2 Ltd takes responsibility because it has had long enough and enough warning on the state of those roads now.
As we were just on the subject of East West Rail, of course most of East West Rail between Oxfordshire and Milton Keynes is nearly complete except one bit—the bit that HS2 Ltd is charged with delivering. There continue to be considerable issues around the Calvert box area, not least a two-year-long road closure that has just been put into place between Calvert and Steeple Claydon, effectively cutting off those two places. Is there an update on progress specific to the Calvert box?
Huw Merriman: Alan will correct me if I am wrong, but I am aware of the issue because, as you rightly say, the Calvert box was an HS2 delivery part delivering the East West Rail component. I wrote to Sir Jon over a month ago to say that I wanted to see the works delivered to ensure that the entry into service for East West Rail was not impacted and I wanted that to be done by the end of November. I believe that the handover took place a week ago from HS2 Ltd to East West Rail, so that work has now been completed. There was a gas utility job that had to be done that took longer but I did chase that up because, like you, I did not want to get to a position where we ended up with a late entry into service for East West Rail. That would have been no good for your constituents or yours, Mr Stewart, as Chair. That has now taken place and I am pleased with that.
I hope that is an example where we will challenge and drive those parts forward when Committee members and constituency MPs raise them.
Q355 Greg Smith: On the reference I just made to a two-year road closure, this goes to the ethos of the way that HS2 Ltd and its contractors operate. There is a two-year road closure cutting off two villages from each other to rebuild a bridge. You don’t have to Google for very long to find examples of bridges that can be built very rapidly when the private sector puts its mind to it. How is it that HS2 Ltd could possibly need two years to rebuild a bridge?
Huw Merriman: That is another one we will need to take back. We have seen some great examples where HS2 has been able to deliver—not least over motorways—bridges when it has taken just a couple of days to deliver it down. We will need to take that one away.
I will make a general point, though, because I think that we are all pushing in the same direction. It is essential for the local authorities, particularly those with the planning responsibility, and HS2 to work very closely together to ensure that this project gets delivered to pace. We are still seeing examples where there is challenge with powers. As a result, that challenge takes time and that means that communities are impacted because the existing infrastructure gets held up while the lawyers decide who is right. The point I have made to local authorities and HS2 is that given that this is coming, in my view it is important that it comes quickly so that we minimise the disruption on local communities where they are blighted during the construction period and where lawyers are involved.
I am not saying that is the issue here, Mr Smith, but I thought it was a general point to make. It has to be in everyone’s interest to deliver this project quickly and efficiently so that the impact on communities is minimised.
Q356 Greg Smith: On that very point of impact on communities, where that two-year road closure is in place, there is a vulnerable resident who uses a mobility scooter. She used to be able to get to Steeple Claydon down this much quieter route. She is now forced to use the Gawcott Road, which I know you will know is a very busy road.
Huw Merriman: I know it well.
Greg Smith: There has been some progress where a bespoke solution has been put in place for her, but doesn’t it say something about the attitude towards communities from HS2 Ltd and its contractors that they have had to posthumously put a bespoke solution in place for that constituent rather than have come to it in the first place by understanding the challenges a two-year road closure would place upon vulnerable residents?
Huw Merriman: Alan, I don’t know if you have additional detail about what we go through in working out impact on residents when we have a closure of that magnitude.
Alan Over: I don’t know this specific case, forgive me, but I am sure that Sir Jon can provide detail on it. The general point should be that we endeavour to make sure collectively that we are looking at the community impact. It is impossible, unfortunately, to construct this railway without impacting people and the obligation on us is to strike the right balance and minimise that impact without incurring disproportionate cost to the taxpayer. I think we need to challenge that we do that with sensitivity and strike that balance. The balance can never be struck in a position where all impacts are alleviated, but it is important that HS2 Ltd and we recognise that there is an impact and seek to alleviate it to the extent that is possible.
On timing, it may be the case that a prolonged disruption is the best way of getting the work done and relieving what would be worse impacts on the community if we took it periodically. I would like it to be recognised that it is possible that what would seem to be an unnecessarily long disruption is in fact the best way of minimising the impact in total.
Q357 Greg Smith: I will come to two more points before I finish on community impact. There are lots of examples across Buckinghamshire, Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, and I think Northamptonshire, where temporary crossings have been put in place across public roads with traffic light systems to enable HS2 traffic to cross those roads. It seems there is no attention given to when those roads are being used for things like schools runs and so on. I give the example between the village of Stone and the town of Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire as one example of this where it seems HS2 is very happy to have made delays run into school drop-off times and pick-up times, and to shut off roads at key points of the day when it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that those highways will be busy, thereby causing mass disruption. It almost seems deliberate to people who have to live with it. What is being done to combat problems like the devegetation between Stone and Aylesbury and other sites across those counties that phase 1 cuts through?
Huw Merriman: Are you describing the incident where the amount of time the traffic light is on red is equal in both directions and yet you can see all the direction of travel because in the morning it is going one way and in the afternoon it is coming another?
Greg Smith: That is certainly part of it, yes.
Huw Merriman: That has always driven me mad. It is not just from an HS2 perspective; I see this in other examples. Let us take that away because we should make sure that the traffic light dwell time reflects the usage of traffic that is going in one direction and then the other. We will certainly take that away.
Alan Over: What the principal contractors are trying to do, which I hope is beneficial to everybody, is to complete their haul roads along the line of the route, which takes large amounts of construction traffic off the public road system and allows them to move it along the future rail routes. I know they can never be completely successful with that but that is definitely one of their objectives. When I have gone on local visits, I have been conscious that the people setting up the temporary works have tried to appreciate the local impact that they are having and to work in kilter with the communities. In this case, your evidence suggests that they are not meeting that requirement but the general strategy of getting as many heavy goods vehicles off the public roads on to their own haul roads and to work in how they sequence the temporary interventions is the right one. We need to make sure that they are doing that sensitively and effectively in as many locations as possible.
Q358 Greg Smith: This is very much my point. In the communities affected from Old Oak through to Curzon Street here, HS2 Ltd and its contractors are the unwelcome aliens that nobody wanted in those communities, yet that example I gave from Stone, past Hartwell House and through to Aylesbury continues after months and months and months to just tail back and cause children to be late to school and parents to be late picking up at school. It is entirely within the power of HS2 Ltd and its contractors to manage that traffic better. What instruction will the Department give to them to behave better?
Huw Merriman: Again, it is striking that balance. Alan is absolutely right to point this out. There will be disruption where we are building such a major infrastructure project and I recognise that there is disruption to the members of the community who will not be able to directly benefit from boarding the trains because they won’t stop there. It is particularly challenging for those members of the public and that is why it is very important that there is a high degree of care. We have looked at cases before where we have not got that right with HS2 and we challenged it. We have the two commissioners who are responsible for bringing those matters forward. They are always in a position to bring those matters to me if they feel that they can’t get them resolved via HS2.
Obviously, that is the starting point to resolve difficulties and then when they come through to me I will always use my influence—as will Alan as the Director General—with HS2 to make sure that a better outcome can be delivered provided, of course, that they can still deliver the railway to time as well. We have got these two competing pressures. I know from when I have spoken to you before that the community engagement officers are regarded as doing a very good job, but sometimes we need to do as good a job with those who are actually delivering the project on the ground and I recognise that there is always more to do.
Q359 Greg Smith: My last question on community impact pivots to businesses. There are many businesses that I hear from—I know there are many businesses up and down the entire phase 1 in other constituencies—who are severely impacted by this. There is the Winters Tale wedding venue near Steeple Claydon, for example, where guests are saying they just can’t find it any more at the moment because of the number of closures. We heard when we were in Buckinghamshire six months ago about the financial impact on the Prince of Wales pub in Steeple Claydon where no compensation is offered.
Has the Department, since this issue was raised the last time we did this, looked again at how businesses that are financially impacted by the construction of HS2 can be compensated? In the departure of Mr Thurston, has there been a change in attitude towards some of those businesses, given that when I challenged him on the Prince of Wales pub in Steeple Claydon, in particular—I am afraid I am going to use some unparliamentary language now, but I am quoting—his response to me, thinking it was not going to be heard by anyone else, was, “Well, it’s a shitty little pub nobody wants to drink in anyway.” That is clearly an unacceptable attitude. Has that changed with the appointment of Sir Jon?
Huw Merriman: I am sorry if that was the response you received, because I know your constituency well, I know that pub and I have met the landlord. He is a great person. I am sorry that is the response you received. I can say that Sir Jon has a real passion with HS2 to lead that organisation with pride and to make sure that everyone balances the need to deliver the job with the need to be respectful to those who are impacted by the job, and your constituents obviously are a good example of that. I take that very seriously indeed and I know that Alan does as well. I am sorry if you got a response that was not the response that you would expect as the MP for that pub.
We have set out, and the Act sets out, having gone through the Bill Committee, exactly what the compensation elements and the regime is for businesses and individuals. It also sets out the commissioners’ approach for those who feel that they are not comfortable with what is being delivered.
I will say one other thing before I ask Alan if he wants to say anything further. I still believe, and I have spoken to Sir Jon and so has the Secretary of State, that there is more that we can do in settling compensation claims that makes them settled faster and more commercially. I challenge the usage of too much external agent or external legal time, particularly when both parties are paid for by HS2 Ltd, questioning whether there is enough incentive for the external agents to settle for the benefit of the landowners and the taxpayer and whether they need to get the balance right between their own in-house team, who are more fixated on delivering an outcome, and better, closer management of the external parties to stop these cases being dragged on. Alan, do you want to come in on anything about business in particular?
Alan Over: Briefly, the compensation arrangements are designed to deal with a majority of cases, but they can’t foresee all potential permutations and that is why we have the construction and residents’ commissioners who can bring to the Minister’s attention cases where these arrangements are not working. We hope that their independence gives a mechanism that allows that check and balance to be put in place. However hard we try in striking a balance between the taxpayers’ interests and the need to compensate people fairly for the disruption, we will not be able to design a system that can accommodate all cases.
Q360 Greg Smith: In my experience, Sir Mark Worthington and Lord Jackson have been superb in their roles in listening, understanding and making recommendations back. My time probably is up, but the challenge I give to you is whether those commissioners have enough teeth to properly hold HS2 Ltd to account on behalf of the Department and, ultimately, the taxpayer.
Huw Merriman: I am always happy to take representations from the commissioners on cases that they feel they have not had satisfactory outcomes, or whether they have the requisite powers to do so. To date I have not had those representations from them, but off the back of this, Mr Smith, I will check in with them to see if there is more they would like me to do. We will certainly take that back.
Q361 Jack Brereton: I was pleased to hear you mention earlier that the enhancements north of Handsacre will be looked at so that we can maximise the capacity out of the West Coast Main Line. We heard earlier, though, that there are particular enhancements that also might be needed at some of the stations, particularly Crewe station where we talked about and heard earlier about the potential for platforms on those private lines. I would also like to see additional platforms at Stoke station, for example. Will you and Network Rail and others be looking seriously at those stations and what enhancements might be required at some of them to relieve the best possible capacity?
Huw Merriman: You rightly raised Crewe, because I think that is probably a good example of where the station improvements would have come off the back of HS2 with the new line. That needs to be looked at differently now with the decision on Network North. We will now need Network Rail to look at the transfer deck proposal they were looking at and the general upgrade of that station because it will fall more within that requirement. There is a question, as I mentioned before, about the trains and the length of trains that will then impact on the platform, which means that we need to look at Crewe for that.
Q362 Jack Brereton: Is that option for additional platforms, an island platform possibly on those private lines being considered as part of that?
Huw Merriman: With Crewe I particularly want to look at what is needed by them. I was fortunate enough to spend half a day with the councillors from Cheshire East, who are responsible for Crewe, and the local MP and other members from the chamber. They spent half a day showing me how transformative this would be. I recognise the disappointment from that team. I spoke to them again this week and I have also spoken to the new local government Minister to talk about what more can be done to assist Crewe, because they have also purchased land in anticipation of regeneration around the station with HS2 coming through.
I am particularly keen to look at anything that will assist Crewe. I certainly recognise the need for the station. One of the points that was mentioned by Nick Bisson, our director, in the Public Accounts Committee was that it may be the case that longer trains go to Crewe that then split—one direction for Manchester and one Liverpool. As that type of work is looked at, it will have an implication for station design as well.
Q363 Jack Brereton: I think it is particularly important that it is not just looked at as a local matter. This is strategically important for the whole of the north, effectively, for the connectivity. I hope that those considerations will be serious, not just for Crewe but for Stoke station, as well as for platform capacity.
Huw Merriman: I can assure you that it will be looked at in that way because it also applies to Macclesfield and Stafford. I can assure you that we will do just that.
Q364 Jack Brereton: We heard evidence yesterday from Lord Hendy and Sir John Arnott. They talked a bit more about the longer-term strategic investment in the rail network and a need for more of a coherent approach to this, the fact that multiple documents have come forward in the past, some of those public, some private, about what enhancements might be needed. Is there not now a need to revisit this in a more holistic way, to look at more coherent long-term investment in infrastructure? Particularly the plans that have come forward for the IRP may need to be revised now but also the Network North proposals. Isn’t there a need to have a look at this to develop, as they suggested, more of a longer-term strategic and coherent approach to infrastructure investment for the rail network?
Huw Merriman: I hope that the Network North document sets out the vision—this Committee has always been focused on a rolling programme of electrification—because if you look at that as a whole, taking those projects and adding in the electrification of the Midlands Main Line, it is looking more towards that rolling programme.
I think you make a very fair point about taking it to the next stage and demonstrating how that all connects, and I am happy to take that away. I think it is really important for people to understand that we are still delivering 140 miles of HS2 in phase 1. The likelihood is that we will still need possibly 13 miles of the tail end of what would have been phase 2b. We are seeing a lot more railway being delivered than is being cancelled, but what is being put in place is a whole series of other different railway projects, which the Prime Minister set out Network North. We can deliver some faster and get some bigger wins on the business case front as well. I am happy to take away turning that into more of a vision.
Q365 Jack Brereton: I was particularly struck when we were talking about private investment. They were very clear that the lack of coherence and longer-term planning that we have had, and the swapping and changing that we have had in the past, is deterring private investment in infrastructure. Do you understand and recognise that there is a need for more longer-term coherence, and potentially for developing more political consensus around what is needed that will support the economy, the needs of passengers and freight? Do you agree that that is what is necessary to attract more investment, particularly private investment?
Huw Merriman: Anything that provides that clarity will, of course, aid private investment—I take that. I also take the fact that that is needed, because if you look at the Euston Quarter and the delivery we have with Euston, we have to make the railway a magnet of private investment. The private investment then pays for the delivery and the benefits of it. Alan has just reminded me of the study that we are doing on the Midlands up to the north-east, which includes Yorkshire, to look at that entire sphere. That investigation, and therefore report, will be put together as part of Network North.
We do need to harness the private sector to deliver this. Bradford is a classic example. While the Government have dedicated £2 billion to Bradford to deliver a new station and a new connection, we need the private sector investment off the back of that that delivers the commercial space, the housing and the hospitality that helps Bradford to completely master plan and transform its city centre. The railway investment can do that.
I totally buy into your ethos and I am very happy to take it away and see how we can better put together a prospectus for the private sector to invest in our railway development.
Q366 Jack Brereton: I am glad you mentioned Euston particularly. How confident are you of securing the private investment needed to deliver that?
Huw Merriman: We are at the start of that process. We have excellent partners in Lendlease, who have been our partners throughout this, and another meeting took place this week. Its global chief executive met Alan at Euston last Sunday with Lord Hendy who chairs the Euston Partnership Board. We are working on the Euston Quarter concept. It is fair to say that some of the challenges with HS2 previously have been that where we look at individual stakeholders and what their needs are, sometimes their needs are too constrained for the overall business case to work. With the Euston Quarter previously, we have had challenges around height constraints and density with London and planning. We have had large requests for investment from TfL for connection to the underground and we have also had challenges with the size of the station when it was an 11-platform and then a 10-platform station proposal, which means that it crowds out enough private sector development to make it economically worthwhile.
We have a complete reset moment with Network North now. Our stakeholders recognise the need to look at their own ambitions again. With Camden, we have an excellent partner who will look at matters from a planning perspective and is willing and open-minded to look at the entire space to see what can be done there to add more. Therefore, I feel very confident that all the ambition and the culture is there to allow the private sector to deliver not just the station component and other parts to it, but a life science quarter that will completely transform the way that London operates. This is one the largest public sector land deals left in London and I believe this reset moment will allow us to deliver.
It is a challenge—absolutely it is—but I feel confident that we can do so because everyone is working together and is firmly behind it. We will have to make a decision about the appropriate delivery body. There are three models: Government-led, mayoral-led, and a new concept that comes up through the levelling-up legislation, which is local authority partners to lead it. In the meantime, we will be working with the Euston Partnership Board to see what development Lendlease will be able to bring forward so that we can start with some momentum rather than just waiting for that process to be completed.
Q367 Jack Brereton: The constraints at Euston are quite clear and Network Rail has recently been issued with an improvement notice by the ORR because of severe overcrowding at Euston. We have also heard in previous evidence sessions about the huge complexity of building over the station at Euston. What happens if these proposals don’t come forward? What is the solution—the fall-back position—if we don’t secure private investment? What will happen to Euston if that doesn’t prove to be successful?
Huw Merriman: We are working on the basis that it is an incredibly attractive proposition. The reason we have been working so closely with Lendlease in the weeks after the Network North documentation is because it wants to start bringing it forward quickly so that we can make some delivery in the meantime on space that we know will not be required. Also, of course, changing it back down to a six-platform station means there is more land to play with, which we did not have previously.
We have seen models where this can be done. The Secretary of State mentioned the Nine Elms Battersea model, which brought in £9 billion of private finance and that funded the Northern line extension. Our ambitions are matched by our private partners but also, crucially, our public sector stakeholders, who also believe that this can be delivered.
That is the part that we are working towards. Where we need to do more if we get to the point that you have just described—certainly that is where the accounting officer assessment takes into account that it might not be possible—we will look at that at the time. Alan, do you want to come in?
Alan Over: It is only to reiterate your points. The economic potential of the area is clear and that has been very much reinforced to us in life sciences and beyond. The initial feasibility engagement is with our current partners, Lendlease and Mace/Dragados, but our consultations around government have also shown that there is a feasible approach here. The cleverness is now translating that into reality. That is a difficult task, as the Minister has set out, but there is potential and ambition there. We have to look to each party understanding its role and making the right compromises to get what should be a nationally beneficial endeavour away. If we can make those early progresses and anchor confidence, that will sustain the progress of the wider project. That is the strategy we are working up. No one should underestimate the difficulty of executing on it, but it definitely has potential.
Q368 Jack Brereton: I am sure you will understand my scepticism, given the number of false starts that we have had with Euston and the dramatic cost increases we saw from the original proposals. I hope that we see delivery of the proposals and that we have a Euston that will support the services that are needed.
Huw Merriman: I will come back to that, Mr Brereton. You are right to make that point but this is what has changed. The complete ethos has changed. Rather than it just being a question of HS2 is delivering it and then everyone puts in their shopping list, everything has completely changed now. It is much more of a partnership approach and everything is open as well. Mace/Dragados worked on the Euston designs; the question to Lendlease, for example, is does it want to be in a position where it is putting in those instructions. Of course HS2 will be crucial for the delivery of the line, but when it comes to the building of the Euston Quarter, including the station, nothing is off limits for what the private sector will be allowed to do. All of the stakeholders are working on the same basis as well.
I see this as a complete reset and the ethos and the attitude is very much to the private sector: what do you need from us for you to be able to deliver? What amounts to barriers that we need to help remove to allow you to deliver? It is not just we are delivering HS2; is there anything you might want to do on the side of that? I believe that that change of ethos and culture will allow for a private sector-led solution and that is why we will be in a different place.
Q369 Jack Brereton: I want to move on to rolling stock. We also heard from Lord Hendy and Sir John Arnott about the importance of rolling stock. They said that if only there was the level of prioritisation given to rolling stock, rather than so much focus on infrastructure, we might deliver a lot more capacity on our actual rail network. On the rolling stock issue for HS2, is there flexibility in the contracts that we have for rolling stock for HS2 to look at some of the things that will be needed now, given the cancellation of phase 2?
Huw Merriman: Alan, do you want to start with this?
Alan Over: Yes, there is some flexibility. The basic design has been determined by the way that it was procured, but we are still working on the design of the rolling stock fitout and how you balance passenger needs, the number of seats and the amount of catering. That is an optimisation process that we will go through. There is also how we best use the available path and where we use 200-metre trains, where we use 400-metre trains on, and where you can get more capacity for the same amount of path but you need the infrastructure at the stations to work that.
There is some flexibility, but it is not completely open. The rail concept has been built around the current rolling stock specification and the 200-metre and 400-metre lengths, and we cannot move completely away from that.
Q370 Jack Brereton: If we suddenly now need more of the Pendolino tilting trains-type of rolling stock, would there be the flexibility to vary the contract to deliver that sort of rolling stock?
Alan Over: The design that we have bought does not contemplate a tilting approach because it is designed to be a non-tilting train on straight infrastructure according to the previous concept for the scheme. There are some acceleration and deceleration advantages of the technology that we are using that are better than the Pendolinos. Obviously, in the areas south of Handsacre, they can achieve much greater speeds than the Pendolinos. We need to look on a whole-corridor basis at the right path to use existing rolling stock and more conventional rolling stock, and the right path to use high-speed rolling stock, taking the whole end-to-end journey speed. That encompasses the high-speed section that remains, where it will outperform any competing rolling stock options, but on the conventional network where we have a choice of rolling stock and a choice of path we will need to look at that on a whole-corridor basis. That is the right way to conceive it.
Q371 Jack Brereton: If a decision were made to say we need some additional Pendolinos rather than what was initially proposed for HS2, would there be an opportunity to go back and think about that, and change it if needed?
Alan Over: I am sure the Minister will want to comment, but the Department and the rolling stock operators have a range of rolling stock contracts and to some extent have flexibility built into each of them, so it has to be looked at across the portfolio. Ultimately, if we came up with a very different concept, we would have to look at procuring different services. That is part of the work that I mentioned earlier, where we are trying to do a rapid review to see how we get the most out of the west coast corridor, including infrastructure and rolling stock.
Huw Merriman: Going back to your point about investment in rolling stock, the average age of our rolling stock is now down to 16 years, eight months now, I think. We have fresh rolling stock because there has been so much investment and 8,000 vehicles have been delivered since 2012.
Q372 Jack Brereton: No new rolling stock has been ordered since before the pandemic.
Huw Merriman: I am giving you that period all the way through. South Western is introducing their rolling stock on to their network. Overall, the length of time has come down. It was over 17 years prior to the latest review. I recognise that there are parts of the network where the rolling stock is older. Mr Smith has part of that with Chiltern. I have another part of it with Southeastern. We do experience that. There are designs to bring more to the market. Of course, the contract was signed between HS2, Alstom and Hitachi, which were successful with the order. That was for phase 1 of HS2 roll-out rather than further afield. That order remains because we are still delivering the 140 miles of phase 1.
Q373 Jack Brereton: I also want to briefly ask you about the point that was made a few moments ago, in response to my colleague Mr Smith, about haul roads. We heard last night, when we spoke to councillors from the Solihull area, that where we have obstructions in the way of the haul road— for example, where HS2 will cross the West Coast Main Line—they have made suggestions about how that could be overcome. Obviously, the haul road cannot get over that obstruction at the moment. They made suggestions about how that could be overcome and reduce pressure on the local network. Has more thought been given to how those sorts of obstructions could be overcome? The significant amount of pressure currently being put on the local infrastructure cannot be overcome unless we address these issues. There are big gaps in the haul road when it goes over the West Coast Main Line, motorways and other infrastructure, meaning that the haul road is not as efficient as it should be.
Alan Over: I agree with you that maximising use of the haul roads to relieve the impact on local roads is the right way to go. Unfortunately, some of the infrastructure obstacles to allowing for complete use of the haul roads are significant. The best way to get across the West Coast Main Line is with a permanent railway—a solution from HS2. That is a big and significant intervention. We are always open to ideas about interim mechanisms that could make that possible, but the solution that HS2 Ltd—I think rightly—adopted is to get the main railway in place and then use that to act as the haul road. I do not think we should assume that we could get across the West Coast Main Line or other big infrastructure areas over the haul roads very easily.
Q374 Jack Brereton: This is years of misery that those communities have to go through because, effectively, solutions that could work better to connect up the haul road are not being considered. Those parish councillors last night said that they felt that their suggestions have been totally ignored.
Alan Over: It might be that the suggestions were not feasible, in which case we would have to say that it cannot be done, but it is absolutely right that we should engage with those suggestions and do so respectfully. If that is not the case, we need to make sure that we are doing that.
Q375 Jack Brereton: Okay. I want to ask you also about land and property throughout phase 2. Obviously, there are significant issues now about how we unwind in 2a and 2b. What more is being done to address those issues? I know, Alan, that you have said to us previously that it will take two years to address some of the complexities around land ownership. Communities throughout Staffordshire cannot wait two years. They feel that this needs to happen within weeks. That was the message that they had previously—that the unwinding would not take years and years to complete. Many communities throughout Staffordshire have infrastructure still in place. It is costing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds for permanent onsite security throughout phase 2. What more can be done to speed up this process so that we are not waiting two years to divest all the different compounds, sites and infrastructure that HS2 has put in place?
Huw Merriman: Okay. I am happy to start with that and perhaps Alan will take over as he feels necessary. I think that it is important for us to distinguish between safeguarding and the sale of land and property. Safeguarding is where we would not have the ownership of the land, but we have certain rights that stymie the ability of landowners to be able to develop if it comes in conflict with the railway. That safeguarding will be lifted for the bulk of 2a by the end of—there is potentially an issue around the Handsworth link. That will be done by a written ministerial statement, which will lift the safeguarding.
For phase 2b and parts going east, safeguarding will be lifted by July because there is more complexity due to the parts needed at the end for Northern Powerhouse Rail. That is the safeguarding part.
The actual sale of the land itself is something that is written down with a requirement for the interest of the taxpayer to be preserved. That is absolutely essential. Ultimately, if six tests can be met, that land needs to be offered back to the original landowner at the market value at the time that we are offering it back. We obviously have to go through that exercise to see if those tests can be met in order to release it. In addition to that, and making it more complex, on 2a there are environmental works and some utilities work going on. We have to determine whether they need to be completed for the benefit of the community or otherwise. There will be certain matters that we will not need to do any further because it leads directly to the pre-work required actually to deliver the railway, but where we have already started matters, for the community it is important that we assess at what stage that will be at. At the right time, we will of course look to ensure that the land and the property is sold off.
Q376 Jack Brereton: I think that serious thought needs to be given to the 2b section, because as we heard earlier, potentially there are other routes for Northern Powerhouse Rail that should be given further consideration that may be more effective and less costly to deliver. I think that should be considered.
Huw Merriman: If I could just come back on that, the Prime Minister promised that we would consult northern leaders to determine the best routes for Northern Powerhouse Rail. Those conversations are going on at the moment. That is why I was having conversations with Cheshire East. I will be up in Manchester on Monday with a view to coming up with a view across the north as to where the best route is. Of course, that may mean using the same route, or at least a large part of it, between Liverpool and Manchester that has previously been looked at that would go via Warrington and Manchester Airport. If that were to be the preferred solution, that would include the last 13 miles of what was phase 2b. That is why it is important to have the safeguarding decision made in July of 2024 rather than before, because we are still working out that route.
Q377 Jack Brereton: Can I ask about the issue of divestment of land? Do you think that HS2 is really the best placed organisation to deal with this, given that many of these communities, particularly those in Staffordshire and Cheshire, have little to no confidence in HS2 as an organisation?
Huw Merriman: Obviously, HS2 is the owner of the land, having purchased it. I think that it is also important that you should feel reassured that when those decisions are taken, as well as looking at what is best for the taxpayer, we will also make sure that we are not in a position where, for example, if all the land is divested at the same time, it ends up causing an issue for the market as a whole and therefore others that are looking to sell their property around that time.
Q378 Jack Brereton: Surely you can understand that people in those communities do not trust HS2 at all to be able to deliver this.
Huw Merriman: Again, I differentiate the position beforehand compared with now. A decision has now been taken to not proceed on phase 2a. We now look towards a proper strategy for selling that property at the right time. There are tests that have to be met. They are well set out and understood. When those tests are met, we will then be in a position to know whether they will be offered back to the landowner, but we will do so in a considered manner that ensures value for the taxpayer—consideration not just for the individual that may wish to purchase back, but also consideration for the wider community that could be impacted by a lot of sales. Sorry, Alan.
Alan Over: To add to that, the land is owned by the Secretary of State and HS2 Ltd is acting as our agent to interface with the people we want to sell it back to and the people who want to have it provided back to them. There should be a convergence of interests. The Government have set out that they want to release that land. Many of the people who formerly owned the land will want it back. I hope that that convergence of interests can cut through some of the lack of trust that you have illustrated or some of the legal obstacles that we have previously had. The Minister has said that we need to make sure this looks after people’s interests and not lawyers’ interests.
At the same time, there are opportunities for use while that land is being released through that process, which might allow farmers or residents to get back the use of their previous property and land sooner. I think that it is in everybody’s interests to pursue that as well. I am not trying to belittle the concerns that you raise, but I hope that the dynamic will be more amenable to rapid progress as the Government have set out.
Q379 Jack Brereton: I finally want to ask about the hybrid Bill process. We heard from the previous panel some of the concerns about the process. The one thing I wanted to ask particularly was about the assurances that were given at the hybrid Bill stage. There are concerns about a lot of those assurances. We heard last night that many of the assurances and commitments that were given have not been followed through by HS2, or not followed through to the level that was expected or intended when it was agreed at the hybrid Bill stage. Do you not think that somebody or some organisation should actually check this process? If you had an ordinary planning application and the conditions of the planning application were not followed properly, the local authority would go out and make sure that the developer was following the conditions. Do you not think that there should be a process—or somebody who should check—to make sure that those commitments that were made in law have actually been carried out as they were originally intended at the hybrid Bill Committee stage?
Huw Merriman: That is one of the reasons why we have to do this so carefully and why it will take some time. We have to make sure that all the legal requirements that were put down on HS2 Ltd and the way it acts are delivered upon. We cannot just leave something unfinished if it is required to be completed. I hope that that demonstrates in a way that there is a desire to do the job properly and to do right by those who have been impacted.
Q380 Jack Brereton: Whose responsibility is it to check that HS2 Ltd is actually fulfilling those commitments?
Huw Merriman: We have the exact same thing when it comes to the delivery of phase 1. It has to be delivered in accordance with the orders that were granted by the Bill Committee.
Q381 Jack Brereton: Who? Who is checking?
Huw Merriman: Sorry, Alan.
Alan Over: Again, I would point to the checks and balances that we have tried to put in place with the indepenent commissioners. They are the route to making sure that if the first line of defence—HS2 Ltd delivering on the undertakings and assurances that it has made—is not being done effectively and we do not catch it as the Department for Transport because we have a small team, the people who are being adversely affected have that route to draw to Ministers’ and our attention that their concerns and entitlements are not being delivered in their view. We then have to rely on the independent assessments by the commissioners to judge whether that is the right conclusion to have reached. I think that that check and balance mechanism is there.
Huw Merriman: The example I would add is that these matters have been tested through the courts as well. To be fair to HS2, it has a successful record in proving and demonstrating they have acted in accordance with the powers as well. It can ultimately be tested in that particular way and has done. I feel that the system is robust.
Chair: Sorry, just one last question. We are going are over time.
Huw Merriman: I feel the system is robust.
Q382 Jack Brereton: So you think that the hybrid Bill process system is perfect and there is no need for any change?
Huw Merriman: I do not think that anything is perfect. We are always seeking perfection. I am saying that it is robust and that it has demonstrated that it has the checks and balances in there. I think that it is crucial that we will take the time when it comes to the sale of the land to ensure that we do right by those who were impacted first of all, but we also do right by the communities who could end up being disadvantaged if we rush this through. We will also ensure that the work that started on utilities and environmental protections will be assessed as to whether it needs to be completed, again, in order to leave the land in the right state.
Q383 Grahame Morris: Good afternoon, gentlemen. I would like to ask you perhaps five or six questions. I want to ask you about Old Oak Common, and some comments that Sir John Armitt made to the Committee. Jack has picked up the point that I wanted to ask about the Pendolino trains. I want to ask about the opportunity cost of HS2 and the £36 billion into Network North. I want to ask you about Curzon Street, which we visited this morning, and I want to ask you about phase 1 budget constraints. I will be as quick as I can, Chair. I know that there are time constraints.
Are we still in the situation, as initially planned, that there would be three high-speed trains per hour operating from Old Oak Common to Birmingham Curzon Street? I know that you said earlier, Minister, that those trains will be 400 metres long. Is that still the plan?
Alan Over: We still plan the opening capability to be three trains an hour from Curzon Street to Old Oak Common and vice versa. I do not think that we would run all of those as 400 metre trains initially, but that would be an option open to us. That remains to be the opening capability. We still expect to deliver that between 2029 and 2033.
I think that we would then review what the second capability would be. That would be an outcome from the work that I described earlier, where we are looking at how we optimise the west coast corridor as a whole. It might be that the timing of Euston gives us different options for how we uplift that service once we start using the conventional railway and the West Coast Main Line via Handsacre.
Q384 Grahame Morris: My colleague explored that and I want to go a bit deeper, but that is my third question. My second question you might think is a bit trivial, but it was raised with us on two occasions last night. Old Oak Common, which I have seen, is a huge station. Someone said last night that it was the biggest station in the country, yet I believe that Waterloo is the biggest, with 24 platforms.
Huw Merriman: It will be the biggest new station built at one time.
Grahame Morris: Fourteen platforms: six high-speed and eight conventional platforms.
Huw Merriman: Yes.
Grahame Morris: Somebody suggested, and I had never thought about this, but given such a prestigious transport hub, but Old Oak Common—if you say Edinburgh Waverley or Waterloo, people know instantly where that is—is it the intention to rename the station? It is a huge public investment, a major transport hub, and it ends at Old Oak Common. It does not even say London, does it? I will just leave that with you, anyway.
Huw Merriman: Yes. We will take it away. We are not really on the branding side.
Q385 Grahame Morris: I am not suggesting you should call it after a politician or a football player.
In an interesting session of the Committee on Wednesday that I recommend looking at, we had Sir John Armitt, the eminently respected head of the National Infrastructure Commission and previously head of High Speed 1. One of the things that he said that struck me as relevant, when we were questioning him about strategic transport schemes, was that the advice he gave to Ministers was to stay out of the kitchen. In other words, “I will take the heat and the responsibility for things that go wrong on timing and phasing, but if politicians, particularly Ministers, interfere, they will have to be held accountable in the House of Commons.” Do you concur with that view?
Huw Merriman: I would be making a mistake if I handed that over to Alan. No, I do not, actually. I think that as Ministers, we are responsible overall. I am the HS2 Minister and that means that I am responsible. That also means that by being responsible, I am determined to make sure that the Euston Quarter gets delivered and to play a leading role in that. That also means that I am determined that where we have differences between what HS2 Ltd believes the cost will be and where we believe that there are mitigations that can be brought in to reduce those costs, we should hold them to account to do that. The House of Commons—Parliament—should hold me to account as far as that delivery is concerned. It is very good of him, but actually I very much think that Ministers are accountable and have to be held responsible, if I have not just set myself up for your next question.
Q386 Grahame Morris: Not at all. I would never do that to you, Minister. I think that it is interesting to put that on the record because I know it raised a few eyebrows when he said that. I do not mean that in any disrespect to Sir John either.
In relation to some answers you gave earlier—I wonder if I might ask Mr Over about this as well—about connectivity north of Handsacre, north of Crewe, north of Manchester and even as far as Edinburgh. If we are reevaluating the whole concept—I understand that there is an opportunity cost in whatever is done—why are we doing it, how do we do it, when will we do it, and who will deliver it and be responsible for it? Do we really need a high-speed connection for those 12 miles from Manchester headed west? Would it make more economic sense to use tilting trains that have more flexible use north of Handsacre, even as far as Edinburgh? Would that not be of greater value as a national asset on our railway system?
Huw Merriman: I think that you wanted Mr Over to answer that.
Grahame Morris: I did.
Alan Over: My colleague Dr Bisson is leading on Northern Powerhouse Rail, but the current alignment is a high-speed alignment. The specification that the scheme ultimately gets built to has not been determined yet and there is plenty of opportunity to examine the pros and cons of that. I would say that a high-speed alignment allows a wide range of choices about what rolling stock you use on it. The difficulty of the high-speed alignment, as you discussed previously, is that it would tend to be straighter and therefore potentially has less flexibility on local impact and geology. The alignment that has been set out, though, has had a lot of work done on it. It has been developed to a stage where it could be brought to Parliament. Those are the advantages in retaining the current approach, but as to how you exploit that in the future, more work needs to be done.
Q387 Grahame Morris: Okay. Thank you. This morning and earlier this afternoon, we looked around the construction site at Birmingham Curzon Street station and the level of work that is going on, not just preparatory works, but major construction and civil engineering work. On the last four six-monthly updates that we have had, the chief executive has reiterated it was a two-stage process at Curzon Street, a design and build process, and the contracts were to be concluded shortly. There was a delay. It has been suggested to us—because we saw the initial plans where the roof design was more extensive—that that might have been one of the reasons for the delay. Others have suggested that it may be because of lack of anticipation of more difficult ground conditions having to bear considerable weight from the structures overhead. Do you have any clarification for the Committee on those delays?
Alan Over: I think that the delays were about making sure that the stage 1 process concluded with the right optimised design and the right target price. That has now been concluded. My understanding from HS2 Ltd colleagues is that we are very close to reaching a position where stage 2 will be authorised. I would not point towards the design of the roof or the ground conditions as the impediment. It was looking at the design as a whole and how we reconciled that with the target price.
Huw Merriman: This means that construction of the station is due to start very shortly as a result. We obviously see what is going on right outside now.
Q388 Grahame Morris: Absolutely. We saw it this morning. Can I ask as well, related to that—I think you mentioned this earlier—about the discussions with the Treasury about the revised budget for phase 1 of HS2 and the cash limits that will be applied? Do we have any update about when those discussions will be concluded and if there will be any practical implications on the delivery of phase 1?
Huw Merriman: This came up in the Public Accounts Committee. I know that the Permanent Secretary was pushed on timescales and was not able, rightly, to confirm that by the next six-monthly report we would be in a position to be on 2023 prices. We are obviously still reporting in 2019 prices. You will also see that there is a lot of work to be done now from the Euston perspective. We talked about the Handsacre part, and the 2a and 2b parts not actually being required. Even dealing with those matters alone will be a challenge for us to work through. We also have the issue to address with HS2 on their cost estimates still being higher than we accept should be the case. That is work we will do with Sir John and the team to get to that correct figure as well. There is an awful lot to do, Mr Morris, not just with the Treasury, but within the Department for Transport and HS2 when it comes to cost.
Q389 Grahame Morris: Can I ask one final question, Chair?
Something you mentioned earlier in response to my colleague’s questioning on the opportunity cost of HS2a and HS2b was that would preclude Network North and some of the schemes such as the redevelopment or building of a new station in Bradford for £2 billion and improving connectivity east-west. Can I ask you about that? The £36 billion that it is currently estimated it would have cost to complete 2a and 2b to Manchester Piccadilly is to be reapportioned and reallocated. Some of those schemes are yet to be evaluated. You said that the Committee had a long-term ambition of a rolling programme of electrification throughout the network. That is absolutely correct, but can I ask you about the opportunity cost of, for example, the Government’s decision to cut Network Rail’s maintenance budget by £1.2 billion over Control Period 7 (2024 to 2029)? Will that not have a knock-on effect on routine maintenance and hamper the efforts that are being made to develop new lines and connectivity across the network?
Huw Merriman: The process for Control Period 7, which will kick in from next year, is a process that Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road go through by way of negotiation about where those amounts need to be spent. The Office of Rail and Road has kept Network Rail to a very high standard in its performance requirements. It has held Network Rail to that standard and I believe that we have a fair settlement that allows Network Rail to invest across their asset as it needs to for renewal. It is over £44 billion for that five-year period. Of course, there will be other matters that they need to look at with technology. We talked before about not requiring maintenance workforce, for example, to have to go to parts of the railway that could be dangerous for them but where they can use technology. Of course, the previous Network Rail-RMT deal allowed for efficiencies on maintenance, so rather than having separate teams with people doing some different roles, to be able to multi-skill and actually have one team. We would expect to get efficiencies in that way. I regard the settlement as a generous settlement that gives Network Rail what they need for the next five-year renewal period.
Chair: Thank you. Before I wrap up, do any colleagues have any last quick questions? Greg.
Q390 Greg Smith: Thank you, Chair. Minister and Mr Over, HS2 are now on their second sinkhole in the Chilterns that the expert advice said would never happen. Can you give an update on what has caused that second sinkhole?
Huw Merriman: Yes. On 9 November, a ground opening took place and that was the second one. The area had a known geographical fault and data from the tunnel boring machine showed signs of movement there. Align and HS2 have been in communication with the land tenant. She moved her livestock from the area. The land is actually owned by the DfT. The bridleway has been closed off and HS2 advised that there is no risk to the public. It was certainly the case that the tunnel boring machine was passing through at that particular time. There has been a meeting between HS2 Ltd and Bucks County Council, who are obviously relevant, but the county council are to be taken through all the sites where there are known geological risks. Of course, we also have the other tunnel boring machine coming through, I think, in a couple of weeks’ time. We will take precautions to ensure that, as that machine comes through, there is monitoring going on at that time. That is the latest that I can give you. I can write to you with more detail, Mr Smith, via the Committee.
Q391 Greg Smith: I think that the Committee would appreciate that, but this is the second sinkhole. Presumably precautions were taken after the first sinkhole appeared, yet this second one has now emerged. What confidence can residents around Great Missenden across to Chesham have that the precautions being put in place will actually deliver this time?
Huw Merriman: These were known issues with ground faults where these have passed through. Obviously, we know where the tunnelling is passing through as well. My understanding of the feedback from the meeting is that the county council felt assured by what was passed to them about the communication and mitigations that HS2 Ltd have put in place as well. Alan, is there anything more you wanted to add?
Alan Over: No, nothing further.
Huw Merriman: That covers it. We will write to you, for sure. Also, I have been in touch with the MP involved on the previous matter to make sure that the Environment Agency, which is funded by HS2 to provide that monitoring and check and balance, is doing an adequate job. I have written to the Environment Agency about that as well.
Q392 Chair: Thank you. I have just one last question. In our evidence session yesterday, we heard from Lord Hendy, who of course prepared and delivered the Union Connectivity Review. The Government response has been coming, and I quote, “soon” for some time. Lord Hendy suggested it is now “shortly”. Can you give us any further clarity as to when we might have a response?
Huw Merriman: I would never seek to second guess Lord Hendy. I should say through this Committee that I would like to thank him for everything he does. He is the Chair of Network Rail, he has been responsible for the Union Connectivity Review, he has ensured that we have the right travel plans in at Christmas and he chairs our Euston Partnership. He and Andrew Haines at Network Rail are doing an amazing job. Perhaps we will write back to you and see if we can use words that are encouraging enough, but he has probably already given you a shorter timescale which should offer that hope. We will write to you, Chair, for sure.
Chair: Thank you. One day someone will provide a lexicon of what Government timetables and definitions mean.
Huw Merriman: Yes. It required me to have a bit of a transition from when I was in your chair to this one here, Chair, and I am still a work in progress in this terminology.
Chair: Thank you both very much indeed for your time and evidence this afternoon.