PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
High Speed 2 Reset - 19 May 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I will make a statement on High Speed 2.

Last summer, I stood at this Dispatch Box and promised that we would be straight with the British people not just about the appalling mess we inherited, but about how we would fundamentally reset the HS2 project. Today I am publishing the latest parliamentary report and the Lovegrove report—an assessment of what past failings in the delivery of HS2 mean for the civil service and the wider public sector. This was a Cabinet Secretary investigation commissioned by the Prime Minister last year. I will also take this opportunity to update hon. Members on the latest stage of the HS2 reset.

However, I will first remind the House of the litany of failures we inherited in July 2024. Costs soared by £37 billion under the previous Government alone, with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money sunk into phase 2 work for the sections north of Birmingham before they were abruptly cancelled. Huge contracts were handed out without improvements in price, despite the Oakervee review’s recommendation to negotiate a better position.

Instead of signalling the country’s ambition, HS2 became a symbol of this country’s decline. After more than five years of construction and more than £40 billion spent, the country was no closer to having an operational HS2 railway than when construction first began. That is the shocking legacy of the previous Government, and I am afraid it gets worse: I can today confirm that the previous Government spent most of HS2’s budget without laying a single metre of its track. Today is about ending that era of neglect.

New chief executive officer Mark Wild and chair Mike Brown have an almost impossible task on their hands; as Mark put it to me recently, it is like changing the engine of an aeroplane mid-flight. However, the new leadership team at HS2 is turning things around, with six major construction milestones reached earlier than planned in the past year. The organisation is more focused on the things that matter, with 300 back-office roles removed. HS2 Ltd is reviewing its supply chain contracts and the incentives within them to ensure that we finish the job at the lowest reasonable cost, and it is managing those contractors properly now to ensure that supplier performance is up to scratch. Finally, we are seeing improved oversight, with HS2’s leadership now receiving real-time updates, helping to prevent delays and keep construction to time.

However, there is no getting away from the fact that the vast majority of HS2’s previous budget was blown on completing around a third of the entire project. Over the past year, Mark Wild and HS2 Ltd have worked closely with me and my Department to assess the remaining work to be done. They have now provided me with updated costs and timescales, which I can share with the House.

It gives me no pleasure to say that the expected cost of completing HS2 is now between £87.7 billion and £102.7 billion, priced in 2025. Two thirds of that increase is down to past misunderstanding of the work required, underestimation and inefficiency—issues within the control of HS2 Ltd, some of its suppliers and previous Governments. The remaining third is linked to inflation, which was not factored into previous cost estimates regularly enough.

On timings, I said last year that I could see no route by which trains could be running by 2033. We now expect the first services to run from Old Oak Common to Birmingham Curzon Street between May 2036 and October 2039. Where the previous Government could not say when the full HS2 scheme between Euston and Handsacre Junction would be delivered, I now expect it to happen between May 2040 and December 2043. Lessons have been learned from the Stewart review, meaning that HS2’s cost and schedules are now built on more solid foundations, with credible estimates published as ranges to ensure that they better stand the test of time.

Colleagues may feel that they have heard this all before; I understand that scepticism, but it is different this time. HS2 Ltd has now used the same experts and methods behind the successful Crossrail reset. It has priced future work against what we have learned so far, and its homework has been checked by an independent panel of experts.

However, if this seems like an obscene increase in time and costs, it is because it is. If it seems that I am angry, it is because I am. I am angry on behalf of taxpayers and affected communities who have been swindled by the failures of successive Conservative Governments; I am angry on behalf of the thousands of rail and construction workers who are giving their all on this project, and who do not deserve to have their industry tarnished in this way; and I am angry on behalf of passengers who continue to wait for the new services and new opportunities that they deserve.

Despite this sorry situation, we are determined to claw back as much time and money as possible. The Lovegrove report not only corroborates the Stewart review’s damning assessment of the decision-making environment under the previous Government, but talks about the original “gold plating” of HS2 and a focus on

“the highest possible speeds, resulting in bespoke and highly engineered design”.

To translate: it was a massively over-specced folly, with the prospect of the fastest trains anywhere in the world tickling the fancy of Conservative Ministers. If we were a country the size of China, I could understand it—but we are not. Passengers just want reliable trains that turn up when they are supposed to, more services and more seats. They want a common-sense approach that gets them the railway they deserve, not a vanity project with trains so fast that proper testing could not be done until track and railway systems were complete.

I therefore asked Mark Wild to remove the gold-plating and complexity from this project, and I have today accepted his recommendation to align HS2 with speeds already delivered on other European high-speed networks. That means we will still run some of the fastest trains in Europe, with speeds reaching 320 kph; but, crucially, it will lower the cost of testing and make delivering the project less risky. It could realise savings of up to £2.5 billion and save at least a year in delivery time.

I realise that there will be those who will say that this is all too much and that we should just cancel the whole thing. However, I can confirm today that it could cost almost as much to cancel the line as it would to finish it, while delivering none of the benefits, with half-finished structures strewn across the English countryside, a relic of what could have been.

This Labour Government are clear that we will deliver HS2 to completion, because this country can build big things; we just need competent people at the helm to deliver them. Prime Ministers Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak—

Order. I am sure that the Secretary of State did not mean to use the name of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak).

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Previous Prime Ministers, in my view, created the world’s most expensive slow-motion car crash, and they barely batted an eyelid. This Government have rolled up our sleeves and done the hard yards, putting the right team in place and being honest about the scale of the challenge.

I understand that this statement today will be met with cynicism and anger, but I say with genuine pride and conviction that I believe we are finally starting to see real delivery. Tunnelling machines are currently working under Londoners’ feet to make HS2 to Euston a reality, and Birmingham’s skyline is changing before our eyes, with new film studios, a sports quarter and housing all being built around the new Curzon Street station. This is national renewal in action. When I last worked with Mark Wild and Mike Brown, we took the delayed and over-budget Crossrail project and turned it into the Elizabeth line, which has now served more than half a billion passengers. We have done it before, and we will do it again. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.

The Secretary of State’s comments today demonstrate not only the challenges faced in the past and the reasons that action was taken to reduce the scope of HS2, but the significant challenges ahead if it is finally to be delivered. It is true that the early years of the HS2 project were beset with delay and cost overruns, with HS2 Ltd failing to maintain tight control of the budget and, frankly, the Department for Transport allowing it to get away with it. It was for that reason that the previous Government appointed Mark Wild OBE as the new chief executive of HS2 Ltd with the clear instruction to get a grip of costs and robustly oversee the project. It is apparent from today’s statement that HS2’s leadership under Mark Wild is taking those steps to try to achieve that.

Where there are actions that can reduce costs in the long run, the Opposition will clearly support them, but given concerns about trust in the project, I hope that the Government and HS2 Ltd will set out in detail how they believe these measures will save money and deliver even on this new extended timetable.

In addition, we have to acknowledge the deep-seated infrastructure challenges we face in this country. When the Prime Minister was campaigning during the last general election, we heard a range of promises about housing and infrastructure goals, but they completely foundered when they came into contact with reality. That is why the Opposition propose substantial changes to environmental legislation to give us the freedoms needed to cut environmental red tape, both for business and large infrastructure projects. Even the Prime Minister does not support regulations that lead to a £100-million bat tunnel—does the Secretary of State?

This issue must be addressed because the Secretary of State has made a number of strong statements. If she is angry, as she says she is, those statements must be backed up by consequential legislative changes that prevent cost overruns from occurring in future.

Turning to the specifics, I wish to press the Secretary of State on matters on which those in the sector have indicated they want assurances. For example, what do the new project cost figures include? Do they include all the rolling stock under the new plans? To what extent is funding for Euston included in the new estimates, and do they include signalling? Do the Government intend to set out precisely what is being funded and when the various elements will be delivered under their new timetable? Can the Secretary of State also explain what steps the Government have taken to improve HS2 Ltd’s performance on settling claims with those impacted by construction, since she has highlighted separately that this is an area that requires improvement?

Of course, HS2 does not operate in a vacuum. On the same day that this statement is being made to the House, it has been announced that Government pressure will result in one in seven rail services being cut on one of Avanti West Coast’s routes following a Government request to reduce expenditure. Given the comments made about the project, is it appropriate that services on the west coast will offer fewer services to passengers?

Ultimately, the Government are right to take steps to reduce costs on this project. Errors were made and should be rectified, and I am glad that the Government continue to support Mark Wild and his team as they work towards opening HS2.

I am grateful to the shadow Rail Minister for his questions and the tone in which he presented his case. He was not quite as bombastic at the Dispatch Box as he normally is, so I can only assume that perhaps he was considering making an apology for the dreadful mess that the previous Government left this project in. I did not hear one, but I accept the manner in which he made his points. I do question where the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), is today. This is not the first time that he has run scared from an oral statement, and I can only assume that it is because he is embarrassed by his party’s abject record on transport.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the appointment of the new CEO, Mark Wild, under the previous Government. I gently say to him that it is a bit like an arsonist demanding praise for calling the fire brigade. Let me quote what Mark Wild said about what he had inherited when he spoke to the Public Accounts Committee just days after he started in his job:

“we are in a completely unacceptable position…we have to acknowledge that HS2 has failed in its mission to control costs.”

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions, and I will answer them directly. He asks how reducing the speed to 320 kph will save money and ensure delivery. To be clear, that will mean that trains on HS2 are running as fast as bullet trains in Japan. We are making three scope changes in this announcement today: first, reducing the speed; secondly, reducing automatic train operation; and thirdly, ensuring that the signalling we put in on HS2 is aligned with the European train control system that is being rolled out on the trans-Pennine route upgrade and across the Network Rail system more broadly. We will depend on proven technologies; we are not taking a punt on world firsts. That is the way to reduce risk in the delivery of this programme and potentially reduce cost as well by up to £2.5 billion.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about bat tunnels. I can tell him that we are building no more bat tunnels on HS2 and that this Government have changed legislation through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which could mean a different approach to protected species in future. I gently ask him who was overseeing the project when HS2 took the decision to proceed with the bat tunnel. It was not this Government; it was his Government, and we have taken actions to ensure that regulations in future do not get in the way of building the homes and infrastructure that this country needs.

The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically whether the revised cost ranges include a number of different areas. I can confirm that there is provision within this range for the delivery of Euston, though we have also gone out to market to attract private investment, given that in the 10-year infrastructure strategy we set out our ambition to deliver the new HS2 station through a public-private partnership. The signalling costs are also included in those cost ranges.

The hon. Gentleman rightly asked me what action HS2 is taking to improve its performance on settling claims on land and property. I know that there are very many hon. Members in this House whose constituents will have experienced frustrations in that regard. In the letter I recently wrote to the chair of HS2 setting out his priorities for the year, I was clear that I wanted greater attention on this area.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about some of the minor changes that Avanti West Coast has made recently to its summer timetable. It came to me with a proposition to better optimise its service pattern to meet the demand in the summer months. If we can save money because we are not moving trains around the country with half-empty carriages, as a responsible Government I think it is reasonable for us to look at that. On the timetable introduced on Sunday, we have seen significant enhancements, including additional seats on London Northwestern services between London and Birmingham. We are seeing the most regular Mid Cornwall Metro service in 60 years. Where his Government failed to invest in Britain’s rail network, this Government are doing exactly the opposite and ensuring that people across the country have the trains they need and deserve.

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

I thank the Secretary of State for being honest with the House and for grasping the nub of the problem. We should not need the publication of the Lovegrove report or today’s statement to know that the cost and timetable overruns on HS2 started long before, because the previous Government wanted spades in the ground before the designs, costs and permits were ready. They then cancelled half the project, so we have the Aston to Old Oak Common project. I am glad that the Government picked that up and are moving ahead on the Euston element as well. We also had the Stewart review and the Oakervee report to tell us what went wrong.

My question is not actually on HS2, because the Rail Minister and the HS2 chief exec are coming to the Committee tomorrow, but on elements that are picked up in the Lovegrove report. What is the Secretary of State doing now to ensure that essential transport projects, starting with the lower Thames crossing and the Northern Powerhouse Rail project, do not go the same way? Will she assure me that she will not put on the high-vis and the hard hat for the photo opportunities until all the detail, permits and cost budgets are in place first?

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is right that the problems of HS2 were born many years ago. The fact that the civil engineering was delayed for four years is not the product of decisions by this Government or the current management of HS2, but is, as she says, about overly optimistic cost estimates, construction starting before designs were mature, insufficiently controlled delivery, poor contractual arrangements, gold-plating, and constant changes in policy and scope. She is entirely right on that.

My hon. Friend asked me what lessons we are learning about the delivery of future transport infrastructure. On Northern Powerhouse Rail, we have worked closely with local leaders to agree scope, priorities and sequencing in advance, so that we know what elements of the overall programme will be delivered first. We have set an overall budget cap for that, and are securing local contributions to ensure that we maximise the economic and regeneration potential of the new transport infrastructure in those places. We are learning the lessons.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Secretary of State for her candour on the scale of the HS2 disaster and for the specificity of the range of dates she provided. The Liberal Democrats certainly agree with her intent: we need to make the most of this shambles, and it would be better to do something with what has been built rather than scrap it and hope that doing so resets the past. It is also good news that the Secretary of State has outlined a commitment to proven technology, rather than the innovations of the future—warp drive and whatever else was being talked about before. In particular, the use of the ETCS for signalling is welcome.

We in this country know how to build high-speed lines, because we did it between London St Pancras and the channel tunnel at a reasonable cost. Of course, our French and Spanish allies also know how to do it. The high-speed line from Tours to Bordeaux in France took 15 years, including all the planning and construction. The Secretary of State highlighted Crossrail’s expertise on the expert panel, which is welcome, but is she sure that that expertise is the same as is needed in the more specialised case of high-speed rail construction? Is she confident that her expert panel has the specific high-speed rail construction and commissioning skills that we need, from either the UK or abroad, to turn the situation around?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for our overall approach. I am reassured that we have the capability and capacity that is needed in the executive leadership of HS2. That was not the case previously. A new financial director and new commercial director are in place, and I am reassured that the six new appointments to the HS2 board, which the new chair has led over the past year, have the right skills.

On the expert panel, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are the multiple layers of assurance as regards the new plan and who has looked at it. We have real expertise on the third line of defence panel, including Kenny Laird, Andrew Paul, Rachel McLean, Colin Brown, Laurent Troger and Miles Ashley. We have also included a rep from the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, and the project representative is involved as well. This is a substantial group of people, who are all putting their shoulder to the wheel to make this project a success.

The consequences of the Conservative party’s failure to manage this project effectively are nowhere felt more deeply than in Crewe and Nantwich, where jobs and regeneration benefits have been lost and Cheshire East council has £11 million in sunk costs. I welcome the shift in emphasis from speed to capacity, but the network between Birmingham and Crewe is at capacity now, let alone in 10 or 20 years’ time. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking more urgently at how we address capacity constraints between Birmingham and Crewe? Will her Department engage with Cheshire East council on its plans to mitigate its losses as a result of the decision to cancel the line in the midlands?

My hon. Friend has been a great advocate for his constituents, and I totally agree that the focus now, as it should have been all along, is on delivering more seats, and more trains that run on time. We will conduct a further feasibility study on connectivity north of Birmingham. That will consider all options and the impact of each option on economic growth, housing, capacity on the rail network, journey times and resilience, as well as looking at how we might design, consent and fund any future specified scheme. I am willing to continue a dialogue with him about those issues.

In her statement, the Secretary of State said that she was angry, and I can assure her that I have been consistently angry about this unaffordable, unwanted railway ever since it was green lit—angry on behalf of my constituents, who have to live in hellish conditions while it is constructed. Landowners are still waiting for payment for land taken, and our roads are churned up by construction traffic, and still unfixed. There is still not the money to deliver mitigation projects that were promised a decade ago. I heard nothing about any of those challenges in her statement.

May I ask the Secretary of State specifically about noise modelling? Modelling has found that in Wendover—where trains were already going to come through at 320 kph—hundreds of homes will face noise that is above the permitted decibel limit set down by the World Health Organisation. Will she commit to the Government fully remodelling the noise impacts on real people—certainly in Buckinghamshire—of the new speed that she has set for HS2, and come back to the House with a commitment that the noise level will not be above the level set out in WHO guidance?

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman’s Buckinghamshire constituents will have experienced considerable disruption to their lives as a result of this construction project, and I know that those who live nearest to infrastructure schemes tend to take more of the pain before the gain from the new service is delivered. I will look into the matter of the noise impacts of a lower-speed railway. My instinct is that the noise is likely to be less, but if what I learn is any different from that, I will write to him and let him know.

The Secretary of State will not be surprised to see me rise yet again to raise issues with HS2. She is right to be angry about the scale of the failings laid out in the reports published today. She is angry, and I am angry, but our anger pales into insignificance when compared to the anger of my constituents, who have had to fight for 17 years as a result of the failures of HS2 Ltd. We heard today in the announcement that we potentially face another 13 years before we even carry on with the work north of Curzon Street to connect to Handsacre junction—and all of that, by the way, is north of Birmingham.

The community is furious. My constituents are the most, or certainly some of the most, impacted by HS2. Just last month, the A38 going past Lichfield was closed, forcing 70,000 vehicles a day on to roads in the city. My constituents are fed up. Can the Secretary of State give some reassurance that the ongoing works at Streethay—that is one of only two places north of Curzon Street where work is continuing—will be completed on time, by October? What mitigations will the Department put in place for communities like mine, who are significantly impacted? By the sounds of it, it could be a third of a century from the start of this process before the trains actually start travelling through our part of the world.

My hon. Friend has been a fearsome advocate for his constituents on this issue, and I know that he is meeting the Rail Minister later today to talk about the impact on his constituency.

I have heard nothing to suggest that the works at Streethay will not be delivered on time. If there is any new information that I have not been apprised of, I will come back to my hon. Friend and let him know. It is important that we continue with the works north of Birmingham up to Handsacre junction, because that is how HS2 will connect to the wider rail network. In the short term, this project will improve connections between London and Birmingham; in the longer term, this is about improving the frequency, capacity and reliability of connections to the north-west, and beyond to Scotland. I appreciate his constituents’ patience with this project, because it is in the national interest.

I have to say, I share a good deal of the Secretary of State’s frustration, not least because I was one of those who argued at the time that if the speed of the railway was reduced to roughly what she is proposing, it would open up a number of alternative route options, avoiding the open countryside that the line now cuts across.

Can I counter-intuitively ask her to be a little more ambitious, despite everything she has said about high-speed rail? She will recognise that the strategic benefits of high-speed rail, as they were put to this House originally, were about a nationwide network, not simply a line between London and Birmingham. Can she confirm that this Government—and future Governments, hopefully—will seek to expand that network, so that high-speed rail focuses not on going faster, but on going further?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very interesting point. One of the things that I am most keen to do is ensure that the huge investment that we are putting into HS2 between London and Birmingham results in an improved passenger experience for people across the rest of the country more broadly. That is one of the reasons why, when we made the announcement about Northern Powerhouse Rail earlier this year, we also announced a feasibility study on a new connection between Birmingham and Manchester. While it is slightly too soon to get into the specifics of what that would look like, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is thinking and planning under way in the Department on ensuring that this investment unlocks the maximum benefit across the country.

Given the huge sums that the Secretary of State is talking about, what I want to raise might appear relatively trivial, but for my community it is quite significant. We have a charity called Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre, which used a lake where local young people in particular could learn to sail and canoe. That lake was taken over by HS2 as part of the route and has not been available for six years. An alternative was not identified until very recently—again, that is part of the decision making on HS2. All the charity’s reserves have now gone, and staff are being laid off. Will the Secretary of State arrange a meeting for me with her officials and HS2, so that I can talk through the opportunities that there might be to assist the charity in continuing to provide an excellent service to our community?

I would be very happy to ask relevant officers from HS2 to meet my right hon. Friend and look at options for the Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre. When I look at the scale of some of the structures being built on the outskirts of London—the 2.1-mile-long Colne valley viaduct, for example—it is evident what a huge and ambitious construction project this is. I am sorry that there have been some impacts on communities and community groups, and I would be happy to look at alternatives.

We have taken a different approach this time; our estimates are informed by the work done over the last five years. I am committed to ensuring that the scope remains the same, and that we do not have the chopping and changing that characterised the previous Government’s approach to this project.

Although I recognise that there will be some impacts in the hon. Lady’s constituency, this is a great engineering feat that we are involved in delivering. It will be the first new terminus station that this country has built in 125 years, and there will be new stations at Birmingham Interchange, Old Oak Common and Euston. Although I am always happy to talk to her about the local impacts, HS2 can provide very significant improvements to the rail network, and the Government are entirely right to be committed to completing this project.

My Chesterfield constituents at one time hoped that they might be beneficiaries of HS2. That feels like many years ago. I share the Secretary of State’s fury about the incompetence that has got us to this stage. We would not have supported a programme like this, had we known that the line would go only to Birmingham. The line should be going to Manchester and Leeds, at the very least; any serious country that had high-speed rail would agree.

I am glad that the Secretary of State has laid out how she will get a grip on this, but I would like to add to what the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said: once she has demonstrated that this Government have got a grip of the costs and the timescales, can we be more ambitious and reopen discussions about extending the line beyond Birmingham, and up to Manchester and Leeds?

As I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), in our announcement about Northern Powerhouse Rail a couple of months ago, we committed to doing a feasibility study on what a future link between Birmingham and Manchester might look like. We have not taken any decisions on the route, the specification, or the speed that the new line would facilitate. I recognise that there are significant capacity constraints north of Birmingham, but as we set up Great British Railways and renationalise our railways, I am keen to ensure that HS2 becomes the spine of the network and unlocks capacity, frequency and reliability improvements elsewhere in the country.

If the Secretary of State decides to scrap HS2 in a year’s time, or in a few months’ time, she will have my full support. What assurances can she offer on providing better services to our residents, on unpaid land claims and on the destruction of roads? In Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages, we have seen nothing from HS2 but a negative impact.

I am keen that HS2 should always engage with the community and local businesses with care, respect and rigour. If that has not been the hon. Lady’s experience locally, I know that I and other Ministers will be only too happy to take that issue away. I am aware that she has an Adjournment debate on the matter later today.

I have to disagree with the hon. Lady on the idea that we should cancel the project. In his letter to my Department’s permanent secretary, the chief executive of HS2 made it very clear that cancelling this project and doing the necessary remediation could cost almost as much as completing the line. We would have half-completed structures strewn across the English countryside, and I am sure that her constituents would not wish to see that. That is why it is right to reset this project and to complete HS2, as I have set out today.

This shocking overspend is equivalent to more than £1,000 per household in the United Kingdom. Families in my constituency and across Britain work very hard to earn money to pay the bills and to try to have a reasonable standard of living. HS2 was meant to bring considerable benefits to the north of England and to Scotland; more reliable and quicker services to Glasgow and the west and central belt of Scotland; more passenger capacity and opportunities for people in the north of Scotland; economic growth; and the reduction of emissions by displacing flights. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss what the long-term plan is to improve rail services between Scotland, the north of England and the rest of our family of nations, so that we have appropriate and reduced journey times, passenger capacity at an appropriate level and services becoming more reliable?

My hon. Friend is right. This is shocking, and the truth of the matter is that this Government are picking up the bill for the mess created by the previous Government. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss how we can improve the capacity, frequency and reliability of services between England and his constituents in Glasgow, and I look forward to discussing that with him in more detail soon.

I can sense the Secretary of State’s anger at the scale, width and depth of the failures in this project, but it was initiated in 2009, when Labour was in power. I am looking at the collective failure on both sides of the House. Labour Members are so quick to point out the ferries problem in Scotland, but it pales into insignificance before the scale of this incompetence.

The Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), said on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme yesterday that the most important thing is that HS2 will create a high-speed link between London and the north-west, and eventually to Scotland. Scottish taxpayers are paying for this folly. The Secretary of State can say the rest of the project will come in 2043, but will she explain when the project will extend to Scotland, as was suggested yesterday? How much more will we in Scotland be expected to pay? How many years after 2043 will it be delivered?

I have been clear and remain clear that we will not extend HS2 north of the west midlands. When I made the Northern Powerhouse Rail announcement a couple of months ago, I announced that we will do a feasibility study about the longer term, after the delivery of HS2 to Birmingham and the delivery of east-west connectivity across the north of England through Northern Powerhouse Rail, and about how we can look to invest in improving the infrastructure between Birmingham and Manchester. That work will start this summer, and I am happy to keep the hon. Gentleman updated.

I welcome the clarity and determination to deliver on HS2. Rail investment is infrastructure investment, which drives growth, but may I urge the Secretary of State to look at driving growth between towns as well as between cities, for example by bringing lines such as the Calder Valley line into the 21st century?

That approach certainly lies behind much of the work that we have done in our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail. My hon. Friend will be aware that at the spending review we announced more than £15 billion for mayors in our city regions to improve connectivity between towns and cities, which are major centres of employment. His aspirations for his area and for his constituents align very closely with ours.

My communities in Balsall Common and Berkswell have taken huge amounts of pain since long before I was first elected in 2019. That pain has been exacerbated by the conduct of HS2 and its subcontractors towards communities. I have met Mark Wild, who knows my concerns about that. I take heart from the level of engagement he has given, and I hope that it continues.

One of the key issues affecting my communities is the land being taken by HS2 that is yet to be released, including around Arden Cross—a project worth hundreds of millions of pounds that includes a health campus and is in conjunction with the local mayor, local councils and the University of Warwick. I am told that it might take four years, but I think it could be done in two years. Will the Secretary of State take a look at this issue?

I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that I am already looking at this matter and have discussed it with HS2’s leadership. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) has certainly raised it with me as well. Where possible, I am keen to release land to enable development and regeneration and to unlock new homes and workspaces. If that can take place without compromising the delivery of HS2, I am keen that it should happen. A piece of work is under way within HS2 to look at the specific issues relating to Arden Cross.

I welcome the honesty and clarity, after years of sitting opposite the Conservatives and not knowing whether HS2 was happening at all, or where it would start and stop—it was going to be a Y-shape in the beginning. This is good news, in a way. I echo the praise for Mark Wild, who has met with my residents, and for Lord Hendy in the other place. However, for my residents in Old Oak Common—this fabled area that was once going to be the terminus—the ever-lengthening timeline is disappointing. Will the Secretary of State consider opening the Elizabeth line station a bit earlier? Some new builds, such as Oaklands Rise, were promised that there would be a brand-new station in 2026, so surely there should be something in it for them before 2039.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that development around Old Oak Common is proceeding in advance of the completion of the rail network. I am pleased that the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation has gone out to find a development partner to build 8,000 new homes in the area, with potentially 1,000 of them starting in this Parliament. We need to ensure that there is adequate public transport provision for any homes and development that happen to provide for new residents. I will take away her specific point about the Elizabeth line; I am not entirely sure of its feasibility, but I will come back to her with more detail.

Many farmers, small businesses and residents have had access to their properties disrupted by the construction of HS2. The Wilcoxes in my constituency have been battling for more than five years to get a simple deed of easement to guarantee access to their property. As a former property lawyer, I know that is a very simple document that should have been agreed; without it, properties become unmortgageable and unsellable. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps she is taking to ensure that these deeds of easement are entered into without further delay?

I am sorry to hear of the situation that the hon. Lady describes. If she wants to write to me about that specific case, I will raise it with the leadership of HS2 for her.

I thank the Secretary of State for her honesty in coming to the House with this update. Wales is, of course, footing the bill for HS2, a project based entirely in England now costing up to £103 billion. While Scotland and Northern Ireland have their fair share of Barnett consequentials, Wales has nothing. People in Wales have had enough of being treated as second-class citizens—they recently elected a Senedd with a majority of Members within it committed to ending this injustice. Will the Secretary of State respect the wishes of the people of Wales and be open to talks with the Welsh Government on reclassifying HS2 so that Wales no longer pays for it, or at least gets its fair share of the Barnett consequentials?

It is not true to say that Wales is getting nothing. At the spending review last year we announced £445 million in direct funding to modernise and upgrade Welsh rail, and only a couple of months ago, in February, the UK Government, with the former Welsh Government, announced a long-term pipeline of rail enhancements that could total up to £14 billion. I would be happy to discuss rail enhancements with the new leadership of the Senedd, and I look forward to having a constructive working relationship with the First Minister and his Cabinet.

Having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on rail for the last nine or 10 years, I have seen a procession of Ministers and officials come along and give reassurances such as those we have heard from the Secretary of State today. It is hard to believe that her successors will not come to the House in the distant future to talk about further resets of the project. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the spending on HS2 will not affect the announcement she made a few weeks ago about improving other rail services in the north? I know that she would be disappointed if I did not also mention the campaign by me and the Father of the House to improve services to northern Lincolnshire.

The hon. Gentleman would expect me to have comprehensive discussions with my colleagues in the Treasury before announcing rail enhancements, and that is what we have done over the past couple of months, whether about Northern Powerhouse Rail—we set out those really ambitious plans at the start of the year—or indeed the anticipated profile of expenditure required over the next 10 years. I assure him that nothing I have announced today changes what I announced in January on Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Before being elected to this place, I was a member of the independent panel for the community and environment fund and the business and local economy fund for HS2, which was responsible for disbursing funding to communities disrupted by the building of a whacking great railway line. Communities rightly and understandably get grumpy when large-scale infrastructure projects affect their communities but there is no obvious benefit to them—a railway line goes through, but there is no station for them to benefit from. What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House that she is looking at what can be learned positively from what has happened with HS2, and in particular at how we can strengthen and make clearer the link between community benefit and large-scale infrastructure projects when the immediate benefit is not obvious to those communities?

One of the failings of HS2 has been to focus on the speed of the line and the four stations, when actually one of its major benefits is to free up capacity on the existing west coast main line between London and Birmingham to enable better regional services and to enable more freight to transfer from lorries on the road to the rail network. For too long the project has been about speed and not about seats and reliability. Through this reset, we are changing that. As I said earlier, we are determined to ensure that this will be the spine of the Great British Rail network that we will deliver as we renationalise the railways.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. It is outrageous to hear about the waste, with money thrown away by successive Conservative Governments. Even now, the eye-watering level of money required to reset HS2 grates on people up in Yorkshire and the north, where the northern legs were cancelled. We also get comparatively less funding per head for transport than counterparts in the south. Does she agree that the small amount of money to be saved from reducing the scope and speed would be better spent on schemes such as Northern Powerhouse Rail and reinstating the York area capacity scheme, estimated at only around £150 million, which would unlock the bottleneck at York station and deliver benefit across the north?

I cannot spend the money twice. I have taken the decision to reduce the speed of HS2 to 320 kph, which we believe could save up to £2.5 billion and result in delivery a year earlier. Given how long people have been waiting for this new railway, I think that is the responsible thing to do so that people can get on these trains sooner than they otherwise would. I understand that the hon. Member is a fearsome advocate for those rail improvements for his constituency, and I am sure that we will talk about them more at the next Transport questions.

The truth of the matter is that despite spending over £103 billion of taxpayers’ money, my son has laid more rail track from his Lego set than the previous Government did under the HS2 programme. But seriously, whistleblowers have alleged that costs were deliberately hidden from Parliament, documents were shredded and staff who spoke out were sacked. Before another penny is spent by the British taxpayer, how will the Secretary of State ensure that in the future there are accountable binding mechanisms to stop contractors and executives from misleading the House again?

The hon. Member is right to raise those important issues. We will always treat any whistleblowing complaints with the utmost seriousness. When it comes to fraud, I reassure him that, as part of the reset, HS2 is strengthening its counter-fraud capability and its internal controls and processes. When spending this amount of taxpayers money, it should be treated it as if it were our own, with the care and attention that we would apply to our own money. We are therefore taking all necessary steps to ensure that we strengthen the controls within the organisation to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.

I thank the Secretary of State for reeling off a list of depressing dates in the far future, leading all but the youngest of us to contemplate our mortality. What is also depressing is the serious lack of investment in rail infrastructure in the north-west north of Manchester; it is an ongoing issue. I get that HS2 has sucked up money, energy and attention, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State might seek to put that right by being creative with use of the existing main line. For instance, will she work with Network Rail, me and Westmorland and Furness council to advance the cause for reopening stations such as Shap and Tebay, ensuring massively improved public transport links for rural north Westmorland?

If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about the case for reopening Shap and Tebay, I would gladly consider that. We are reopening some rail stations across the north of England. The Northumberland line, which I visited at the start of last year, has been an enormous success, with new stations at places like Ashington and Blyth. We are investing in rail in the north of England—that was demonstrated by our commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail—but I am happy to look at the specifics of the scheme that he suggests.

I thank the Minister for delivering this really important update in the House, rather than at party conference as the previous Tory Prime Minister did. What has really struck me about this statement is that the cost of HS2 is now measured in the hundreds of billions, but what we are spending on active travel is measured in the hundreds of millions. I think the Government previously committed only £600 million until 2030 on active travel. Projects such as the Thame to Haddenham greenway would deliver an enormous benefit to my constituents. Will she reflect on the differential between how much is being spent on active travel and this project?

I will gently correct the hon. Member. When it comes to HS2, we may be talking about tens of billions, but we are not talking about hundreds of billions. He makes a fair point about the importance of investment in walking and cycling. The Government are due to launch the third iteration of the cycling and walking strategy, and we are backing that with £600 million-worth of investment. We realise the benefits that active travel—people walking and cycling more, and using public transport —can have not just for people’s own health, but for the environment and the economy. It is something that the local transport Minister and I care deeply about and will ensure that we make progress on.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, for her positivity and for trying to make matters better. She talked about maximising international standards and reshaping governance to find efficiencies, yet my constituents in Northern Ireland are facing critical infrastructure deficits of their own. If the fundamental reset is truly about driving economic growth and maximising value across the United Kingdom, will the Secretary of State please, very genuinely, explicitly outline how the billions clawed back from streamlining HS2 will be used to support Union connectivity and in particular air passenger duty, which hampers connectivity within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on levering in a question on air passenger duty into a statement on HS2.

He never misses an opportunity.

My hon. Friend is right; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) never misses an opportunity. I am very concerned about ensuring that connectivity between the UK mainland and Northern Ireland remains and that it is reliable and affordable for people. I will be sure to talk further to the hon. Gentleman about what more can be done—aside from air passenger duty, which is a matter for the Treasury. If there is anything that my Department can do to improve the situation for his constituents, I will be only too happy to talk to him.