[0:00]and given the length of the publication, the second tranche will now be published after Whitsun recess. To give to give the house sufficient time to review the material and to be able to ask me and the government
[0:11]questions, Mr. Speaker. It could have been published this Thursday, Mr. Speaker, but I felt that the house would deem that to be inappropriate given it would be such a significant publication.
[0:23]Mr. Speaker, I just refer back to my previous comments. This will be the largest publication other than I think the Chilcot Inquiry report ever published to the house. When the government publishes the second
[0:33]tranche of documents, we will also publish a methodology confirming the process we have followed and it will be clear from the published information the basis on which content has been redacted. The targeted redactions made to the
[0:45]material beyond those made relevant to national security or international relations have been made in line with clear precedent set by previous administrations in responding to humble addresses.
[0:56]As I set out to the house on the 23rd of February and again when we published the first tranche of material on the 11th of March, we have taken the normal approach to redacting junior officials' names,
[1:06]contact details like telephone numbers and email addresses, the personal data of third parties where this is not in scope of the motion and where relevant legal professional privilege. This has been done using the principle
[1:18]set out in the Freedom of Information Act and in line with the ministerial code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both houses in 1997, which state that ministers should be as
[1:30]open as possible with Parliament and not provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute. I'm sure members across the house will
[1:40]recognize there is no public interest in the government publishing the names and contact details of junior officials or their telephone numbers. Mr. Speak Oh, order. >> I don't know. I know you've been here
[1:51]quite time, but it's 3 minutes. We're over 3 and 1/2 minutes now. And I wasn't given notice of extra time needed. And obviously, the other people would need to know that. Please, I did
[2:03]set out rules of the house, which was the date. And once again, we've broken them. We've only been back a few days. Second chance. >> Um forgive me, Mr. Speaker. In that case, I will um sit down and answer further to detail in answer to questions
[2:14]from members of the house >> The next question. Sir Jeremy Wright. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And thank you for granting this urgent question. Thank you to the Minister for what he has said. But as you and the house know, the Intelligence and
[2:25]Security Committee has been considering redactions documents on the grounds that if unredacted, those documents may prejudice national security or international relations. But it has
[2:37]become become apparent to us that the government also intends to redact documents for other reasons not specifically permitted in the humble address or in some cases to withhold
[2:48]those documents altogether. Now, as the Minister says, the government did issue a list of further grounds on which it intended to redact along with the first tranche of documents that it published,
[2:58]including as he says email addresses and phone numbers and what's described as personal data. Though there is of course no mechanism for the house to confirm that those redactions are limited to
[3:08]only what is necessary. But I want to ask the Minister about material that the government intends to withhold for yet further reasons. For example, due to commercial confidentiality or to protect
[3:20]the monarch. The government also intends to withhold some documents related to vetting in their entirety. Now, Mr. Speaker, I make it clear that my committee has considerable sympathy with
[3:31]the substantive arguments the government may make for withholding information beyond that currently justified in the humble address. There are, for example, valid concerns about the disclosure of
[3:42]information given in a vetting process inhibiting future subjects of vetting or those who are asked about them from being as open and forthcoming as they need to be for vetting to be effective.
[3:54]But we cannot accept that the government is entitled to ignore or to unilaterally alter the terms of the humble address. So does the Minister accept that if the
[4:05]government wants to argue that the humble address is too broad as drafted and needs to be refined, it must come to this house and make that argument and get the house's consent for any
[4:16]alteration? Does he further accept that without doing so, when the next set of documents is published with information withheld, then the government will not succeed in persuading this house or the
[4:27]wider world that this matter is closed? And finally, does he accept that if the government takes it upon itself to redact or withhold information contrary
[4:38]to the terms of the humble address it agreed to be bound by in February, that would be an issue not just of process, but of parliamentary sovereignty? >> Sir Greg Knight Jones.
[4:50]>> Um, thank you, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the questions from the right honorable gentleman about compliance with the humble address, I refer him to the statement I've made previously in relation to the principles set out in legislation and the motions of this house.
[5:01]Um, as I set out, I think he's asking me specifically about um, personal data that was collected as part of the security vetting process. And as I think he alluded to in his answer, the raw
[5:12]data that is collected as part of those investigations, which for example might relate to how much money you have in a particular account or who you may have had a personal relationship within the past, that raw data would never be
[5:23]published because if we did so, people would feel unable to answer those questions honestly and frankly in any UK security vetting investigation in the future, which would undermine the very basis of our national security system.
[5:35]>> Mark Weston, chair of the Joint Committee on >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have certain concerns just really around the the amount of WhatsApp and other
[5:46]channels that have been used for very informal but important communications between officials and ministers. Is it a practice that seems to have started very actively under the Johnson and
[5:57]government and continued thereafter. So, that would be my first concern. And then the second is about the use of low-level IT systems for quite serious
[6:07]documents of record. Can you update the house on what has been done to tighten up these really important channels? >> Secretary Johnson. >> Um can I thank my honorable friend? I agree with his concerns and similar
[6:18]concerns that have been raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, both on the extensive use of what we call non-corporate communications channels, but also in respect to information that should have been on a
[6:29]higher level of classification that was shared at official sensitive. I've already announced to the house there's going to be a review that will begin imminently on the use of non-corporate communications channels, and I'll be taking further action to make sure that
[6:40]sensitive information is shared at the appropriate classification. >> Shadow Minister Neil O'Brien. >> Mr. Speaker, the house gave the government a very clear instruction that the only
[6:51]documents that could be redacted were those which might prejudice UK national security or international relations, and all of those documents were to be referred to the ISC. So, for my incredibly respected and
[7:03]right honorable friend to say that the government has applied redactions to the documents sent to the ISC beyond the scope agreed by the house, and has also withheld documents entirely from the
[7:14]ISC, is an extremely serious matter that completely undermines what this house agreed. There may be legitimate reasons the government doesn't want to place certain things in the public domain. But if the humble address motion doesn't
[7:25]allow for redaction on those grounds, the government can't just unilaterally decide to ignore the will of this house. And sadly, this pattern of backsliding fits a pattern of behavior the Prime
[7:36]Minister's chief of staff had to resign over the Mandelson scandal, but now he's apparently back advising the Prime Minister already. We forced the government to hold an inquiry into the grooming gangs, then they sabotaged it and they dragged their
[7:48]feet for a whole year. We said it needs to be harder to get ILR. Home Secretary said she'd do it. Liberal Democrats didn't like it, and so now it's not in the King's Speech. Again and again, as soon as the attention moves elsewhere,
[7:58]they start backsliding. So we now expect the government to discuss its approach to the Humble Address constructively and would welcome such discussion. So I ask the Minister, now that the government said reviewed all the documents,
[8:10]review the documents. When is the government going to release all the rest of the Mandelson files? The Minister says after Whitsun. When after Whitsun? Will the government return to the House to ask permission for the redactions
[8:20]that they clearly wish to make, which go beyond the scope of the Humble Address? And would the Minister brief opposition members on Privy Council terms about these broader redactions that the government clearly wishes to make? Mr. Speaker,
[8:32]members opposite voted for a cover-up when they voted against referring the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee over this. They don't like it, but it's true. This House and the people of this country deserve better than yet
[8:43]another cover-up. Sir Greg Knight Jones. Um Mr. Speaker, I take these matters very seriously, as I'm sure members across
[8:53]the House uh would recognize. I will not though for one instance uh countenance the idea that there is, as loud as you may want to shout it, a cover-up. If there was any suggestion of a cover-up, Mr. Speaker, I would not be standing at
[9:05]this dispatch box to defend the process. I would resign. That has not been the case, and I would suggest to the honorable gentleman that he might want to focus on the substance of the matter at hand. On the questions that he's put before me, I've answered them in the
[9:16]statement and in my answer to the uh co-chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I refer him to my previous answers. Dear member for Aldridge, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Speaker, I rise to support the ISC in their carefully
[9:28]considered concerns. And I I am uh disappointed at the uh at the answer that the government have given has given. It seems to me that one of the questions in relation to the Mandelson
[9:39]appointment is why it is the when the UKSV document had two red boxes ticked which included this man should not be appointed that somehow or other that was
[9:50]translated into he should be appointed. And it is very important that the public know and understand that we are learning from the mistakes that were clearly made and we cannot know that those that
[10:01]lessons have been learned unless they are checked and committees in this house, my committee and the ISC are trying our best to get to the truth of this and we are having obstacles put in
[10:11]our way. It is for that reason I believe that with proper redactions it should be that the ISC are allowed to look at this at this file to understand why it was
[10:20]that mitigations could be put in place in order to make us safe when it came to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. >> Secretary Johnson. Do you confirm, Mr. Speaker, the uh documents that related to the
[10:32]recommendation put to the Foreign Office and the Foreign Office's decision to appoint Peter Mandelson irrespective of the recommendation that was put to them, these documents have been referred to the Intelligence and
[10:43]Security Committee. What has not been referred was the raw data collected as part of uh interviews undertaken with Peter Mandelson which in any circumstance we wouldn't share in any uh
[10:54]in relation to any appointment and to confirm that neither I nor any decision-maker in this process have seen that level of personal detail because it is kept so securely to ensure that when people go through this process they feel
[11:06]able to give full and frank answers without a wide range of politicians or others seeing that deeply personal information. >> Please just by Liberal Democrat spokesperson. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This
[11:16]house did not pass the humble address so that ministers could decide 4 months later which inconvenient information they would prefer Parliament didn't see. And following concerns from the ISC that
[11:27]the government is redacting information far too broadly, we must ensure that they are not just withholding documents and information from Parliament on their own say-so. Every day this pantomime
[11:36]drags on, public trust erodes further. Parliament asked for transparency. Epstein's victims deserve justice and the public deserves answers, not redactions. The point is not that any
[11:47]member of this house wants a junior civil servant's public date put personal data to be published. It's that it's not the government's decision to make where the line is to be drawn. Mr. Speaker,
[11:58]given that documents on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's trade envoy role are also due to be laid before this house shortly, will the Minister confirm that he will personally ensure that those will be produced without
[12:10]redaction, too? >> Um on the first part of the honorable lady's question around the assumptions of the government withholding information that it shouldn't, I'm just afraid, Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect.
[12:21]This is the most extensive disclosure of information, I think, ever in relation to a humble address. The sheer The sheer depth of the document when it's published will illustrate to the point that the government has gone to great lengths to ensure that it's complying
[12:33]with the humble address. That's why we've established a process with the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Public Administration Committee with independent Casey oversight to assure that this process is being done properly. In relation to her question
[12:44]about the motion in relation to Andrew Windsor, um that humble address is being administered by the Department of Business and Trade, and I understand it's due to be published very shortly. >> Mr. Speaker.
[12:55]>> Speaker, I've asked the Minister both in this house and through written questions on numerous occasions to give the house reassurances that Morgan McSweeney only ever handled documents which he had the
[13:07]appropriate level of security vetting when working in Downing Street. Now, the vagueness of the Minister's replies has been noted by members of this house and by journalists. So, today I again give
[13:18]the Minister the chance to put this issue to bed by stating clearly on the record that at all times while working in Downing Street, Morgan McSweeney had the appropriate level of security
[13:29]clearance for all the documents he handled. >> Um, can I thank my honorable friend for his question? I refer him to my previous answer. >> Sir John Hayes.
[13:39]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister will be aware that on the 21st of April, the ISC, on which I sit, made clear the humble address does not allow for documents to be withheld from
[13:51]Parliament, only for redactions to be made where the ISC has agreed to them. Last week, we were obliged, Mr. Speaker, to issue a further statement saying that
[14:01]it come to our attention that documents were being withheld from the ISC. Now, the honorable gentleman may feel that that's justified, but the humble address
[14:12]doesn't permit it. The point is that he is confusing scrutiny with disclosure. The ISC is well used to making judgments
[14:23]about what's made public. That's the way That's why the house chose the ISC as the mechanism to deal with these matters. Will the honorable gentleman
[14:33]confirm that in line with the humble address, all material will be submitted to the ISC, and in particular, will he confirm there was no document or any
[14:44]communication, emails, and so on, related to mitigation of any risks associated with Peter Mandelson's appointment?
[14:54]>> Um, all documents that are in the scope of the humble address will be published in the normal way. In relation to his question about the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, any redaction that had any relationship with
[15:05]international relations or national security have been submitted to the committee for their consideration. As he knows, as I confirmed to the house, that process has concluded. I think he's
[15:15]asking me again about personal data, and I refer him to my statement, which makes the point that compliance with the humble address sits within the context of the Freedom of Information Act, uh
[15:25]the ministerial code, and motions passed by both houses about how to comply with that statement. And as I said, all further information will be published in due course. >> Kim Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, I'm very
[15:36]concerned that um it appears number 10 is still continuing to cover up Mandelson's dodgy dealings by redacting and withholding certain information. So,
[15:47]what was Mandelson's role with the pre-end and Palantir meeting? Why did the former health secretary grant Palantir unlimited access to identifiable NHS patient data? So, Mr.
[15:59]Speaker, what assurances can the Minister give us today that any information relating to Mandelson's involvement with Palantir will be
[16:08]exposed to full public transparency and scrutiny? >> Mr. Johnson. >> I can confirm to my honorable friend that all documents will be published in relation to the humble address as I've
[16:18]set out today and previously, but again reassert the fact that any suggestions of a cover-up are merely conspiracy theory. >> Richard Foord. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Olly Robbins
[16:29]appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee and was asked by us why he did not view the summary document produced by UK Security Vetting. He pointed to the sensitivity of the vetting
[16:39]interviews, what the Minister calls the the raw detail, and said that those detailed vetting files should remain in a hermetically sealed box. We've heard
[16:49]that that box was not opened for sharing with the Prime Minister, and it has not been opened for sharing with those of us who sit on the Intelligence and Security Committee. The government does need the
[16:59]consent of Parliament to keep the full details sealed and inaccessible to the ISC. In the future, does the Minister intend for the SCVO to have the discretion to
[17:09]ward develop vetting, or will that sit solely with UKSP? >> Mr. Johnson. >> Um Mr. Speaker, as I've said, any uh summary documentation and recommendation
[17:20]that was put by UKSV to the Foreign Office has been shared uh with the honorable gentleman's committee. What has not been shared was the raw data collected in interviews uh with Peter
[17:32]Mandelson. And as I've said repeatedly to the house, and I'm sure he will agree with me, if there was a mechanism for that level of personal detail, and I am talking about how much money you have in personal accounts, who you may or may
[17:43]not have had a relationship with in the past, if that was known to be able to be made public to politicians, people going through the security process would not feel able to give full and frank answers. That would undermine the very
[17:54]nature of our national security system, and I'm sure as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, he wouldn't wish to advocate for that. >> Mandy Martin. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to thank the ISC and the Foreign Affairs Committee for their role
[18:05]in this process. Mr. Speaker, although it's not mentioned today, I'd also like to ask the Chief Secretary to provide the house with an update on the government's proposed legislation to remove peerages from those disgraced
[18:16]peers. >> Um, can I thank my honorable friend for her question. I was delighted to see that it was confirmed in the King's Speech last week that legislation will be introduced in this session and we'll be bringing that forward shortly. >> Good.
[18:28]>> David Davis. >> To press the Minister on his lack of answer >> I remind my honorable friend to for South Holland and Deepings. >> When it became apparent that Mandelson
[18:38]posed an obvious serious security risk to the state, it was said that there were ongoing mitigations put in place in
[18:46]order to control that risk. Will the ISC see those ongoing mitigations? And if not, why not? >> Um, I think, Mr. Speaker, this is a
[18:58]question specifically to the Foreign Office in relation to evidence given by the former Permanent Secretary, uh which is about how mitigations can be put in
[19:08]place to manage risks. For example, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, if you previously had a client in a commercial relationship with a business, you would not be allowed to meet with them
[19:18]privately whilst you hold public office. These are the types of mitigations that I think the Foreign Office was referring to, and I think sound legitimate in the circumstances. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I thank the
[19:30]Secretary of State for his statement today and the way he conducts himself about this very sensitive issue, and I know when he stands at the dispatch box to talk about it, the thoughts his thoughts are with the
[19:40]victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Can I ask him whether this second tranche of materials will include materials that have previously been referred to the ISC?
[19:50]>> Can I thank my honorable friend for his question? The second tranche of information will publish all remaining documents except those that are currently with the Metropolitan Police
[20:01]in relation to ongoing criminal investigations. As I've said to the House in my statement, this will be a very, very significant publication that will warrant careful consideration from members across the House, and so we want to publish it with sufficient notice to
[20:13]allow members to consider it before coming to the House to ask any questions they may have of the government, which is why we are now publishing it after the Whitsun recess. >> Julian Lewis. >> In more than 30 years of its existence,
[20:24]the Intelligence and Security Committee has never once suffered from a leak. Therefore, anything that is disclosed to
[20:34]it, no matter how sensitive, is not going to be published. Therefore, the question of it undermining the security
[20:43]vetting process, if such raw data were published, does not arise because the ISC is the one parliamentary body
[20:52]guaranteed to ensure that that doesn't happen. So, can he stop obfuscating on that aspect, and can he confirm that
[21:03]irrespective of the question of the raw data, what will definitely be made available to the ISC if it hasn't been already, are the annotations and the
[21:14]documents that show how an initial failure to pass vetting for Lord Mandelson became a decision to approve
[21:25]him and state that he had been successful in getting through the process. >> I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, that all documents that needs to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee
[21:37]have now been referred to it and that process has concluded, which is why we can move to publication after the recess. >> Mr. Duncan. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Speaker, the Minister must accept
[21:49]that there is no more august committee in this place than the ISC. He must further accept that there is it is the
[21:58]least partisan organ of this Parliament. And it is against that incomprehensible reality that number 10 and the peddlers
[22:09]of chaos within number 10 have sought to confound the ISC by withholding information and deviating unilaterally from the terms of the humble address.
[22:20]So, will he just say very clearly, he's given himself and number 10 till after Whitsun recess, when after Whitsun recess will he release the next tranche
[22:30]of documents? >> Just to reassert, Mr. Speaker, I really don't think members are advocating that the raw information collected as part of
[22:40]national security screening interviews with people who are becoming public servants ought to be shared with Parliament. The summary of those recommendations and
[22:51]the advice put to departments should and have been and I think that is the appropriate way to handle that. He asked me specifically about when the document will be published after Whitsun recess
[23:02]and we stand ready to do so as soon as we're able to secure the time in the house. >> Sir Julian >> Uh Mr. Speaker, this is a deeply unhappy and unacceptable situation to have the
[23:12]chair and the ISC committee coming to this house after writing, after raising questions informally with officials and the minister himself, to be coming here today and having to pose a UQ. It's
[23:24]completely unacceptable. Will he confirm that if there are any changes to permissions, he will come to this house and seek approval from this
[23:33]house for those changes? >> Um Mr. Speaker, I think I'm right in saying that the um honorable gentleman who secured the urgent question made the point that in
[23:44]relation to the government's argument about sharing raw data, the committee was in some agreement with that. I don't think that's the issue that is in dispute. So, any suggestion of uh uh withholding information against the will
[23:55]of the motion, I'm not sure is is in contention. He asked me about compliance with the motion more generally, and I refer him to my previous answer. >> Stewart McDonald >> Thank you very much, um Mr. Speaker. I
[24:06]would simply repeat that the house surely has a right to know when we're going to get this report. The The Intelligence and Security Committee said that they were unhappy with the
[24:18]amount of WhatsApp messaging that was being used by the government. The image which is being created amongst the public is a government which is avoiding the issue, is incompetent, and
[24:29]it's undermining public confidence. The minister started off by saying he could have presented the document this Thursday. So, if he knows he could have done it on Thursday, can
[24:38]he tell us when after Whitsun we will see it? >> Uh Mr. Speaker, as I say, and the house will see when the document is published, if I'd uh published this document on Thursday with the house rising on
[24:50]Thursday afternoon, members would rightly have criticized the government for not being able to have sufficient time to read it and to be able to ask questions of the government. I am keen for it to be published as soon as
[25:01]possible after the Whitsun recess and I'm arranging that with business managers. >> Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid the answers about publication simply are not
[25:11]good enough. Mr. Speaker, the Minister may think that he's putting an argument to this house, but he's treating not just this house as a bunch of mugs, he's treating the public as a bunch of mugs.
[25:22]And the reality is that one of his own back benches that as a result of what happened, his party is being called the pedo protected party. So, may I say to the right honorable gentleman,
[25:34]will he, yes or no, publish this data before the unnecessary costly by-election?
[25:44]>> The publication will be published to the house after the Whitsun recess as I set out and I'm afraid I just disagree with the honorable gentleman's sentiment. >> Angus Brendan. >> Mr. Speaker, I would add the to the comments of my honorable friend for
[25:56]Edinburgh West in the sense that the Minister has outlined a a date this week that it could be published. So, so why can he not actually just commit to a timetable so we can hold him to account?
[26:08]That's the key point. This whole grubby saga as highlighted by the ministerial code and responsibility in government is something that the public don't seem to think actually counts for anything anymore. So, I wondered if as a lesson
[26:19]from this grubby saga, the Minister might look to bring forward legislation that would make the ministerial code binding and ensure the consequences when ministers fall short and don't honor up to their end of a deal actually have
[26:29]something taken as a result and action from that. >> The government believes the ministerial code is functioning as it should. We've increased the accountability measures associated with it and where legislation
[26:41]is required, for example, to remove peerages from disgraced peers in the place, we bring forward that legislation shortly. >> Paul Rowlinson. Do Labour MPs not realize
[26:53]that it's because of high-handed behavior like this they suffered the drubbing they suffered on the 7th of May. The Minister has said the Minister has
[27:06]said that the documents will be published after we return from wit on the 1st of June. But he has repeatedly refused to answer
[27:17]whether or not they'll be published by the Makerfield by-election on the 18th. So let me ask him yet again can he guarantee the house and the
[27:29]constituents we represent that this large batch of documents will be published in advance of the Makerfield by-election on the 18th of June, yes or
[27:39]no? >> Mr. Speaker, the right honorable gentleman knows that we have to secure time in the house with business managers uh for business action. I am ready for this document to be published as soon as
[27:50]we're ready to do so and I committed to do so after the recess. >> Bob Blackman >> Mr. Speaker, one thing this sorry episode has achieved is to make the Minister an absolute expert on warm
[28:00]words and platitudes. I want to go back to the issue of disappearing messages that the member opposite raised. Obviously those messages aren't retrievable but the very minimum we should get is a detailed breakdown of all those who were asked to supply
[28:11]information and were told they couldn't do so because they had disappearing messages on their phone. I think we're entitled to know which Ministers and which conversations are no longer accessible to us. >> Uh
[28:23]all of the documents that have been made available through the ample address will be will be published in the second tranche. >> Shabana Adam >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 2021, the Prime Minister wrote an essay where he
[28:33]said, "Where the current Tory government has muddied the waters of transparency, I want to make it easier to hold government to account. A Labour government must play its role in restoring honesty, decency, and
[28:44]transparency in public life." And yet here we are. Does the Minister agree with me that after all the redacting of these messages, that it's not only the Labour Party that is being damaged, but
[28:54]democracy itself? >> The honorable gentleman is making assumptions about reductions reductions that he's neither seen nor read. Reductions have been made in relation to
[29:04]personal data or in relation to national security and international relations. That is it, Mr. Speaker. >> Alt Luca. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, the government stands accused by not one,
[29:15]but two of the most august committees in this house about not playing fair in giving across the information. The Minister's argument is simply this, that
[29:25]the government has done nothing wrong. Why therefore would both of these committees come to this house and lay those accusations? >> It's a question, Mr. Speaker, for the
[29:35]committees. I've got Bramley. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We heard at the Foreign Affairs Committee about the pressure that the Foreign Office was under to move quickly on the appointment
[29:47]of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. Now, concerns have been raised about the lack of transparency surrounding the papers connected to that appointment. If the government has
[29:57]nothing to hide, why is it now changing the terms and scope of the humble address, withholding and redacting documents from the Intelligence and Security Committee? And so, will he
[30:07]confirm that he will ensure the UKSV summary document will be shared with the ISC Committee? >> Mr. Speaker, the government isn't trying to amend the terms or the scope of the
[30:18]humble address. It's just a factually incorrect statement, Mr. Speaker. She asked me about documents that can be shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to UKSV's recommendations and the decisions made by the Foreign Office. I confirm those
[30:29]documents have been shared. >> Jim Shannon. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I thank the Minister for his statement that I can sit in some I've contacted me regarding the the
[30:40]overreach of government bodies and their refusal to stay within the parameters that are displayed just in the last few days in the legal judgment funded by the Police Ombudsman claim of your U seek losing in Northern Ireland where four
[30:52]were were found to also exceed legal powers. Ever mindful of that, again today we have a step in considering to highlight highlighting overreach that say it's
[31:02]refusal to be accountable to the public. Rebuilding trust is absolutely vital. The Minister, I believe, is committed to that. So, how will the Minister start the process of rebuilding trust in all aspects of public life when appointed
[31:13]individuals refuse to stay within their limits? And what steps can be taken to enforce this in every level of public service? Thank you. >> Mr. Speaker, I share the sentiment of
[31:24]the honorable member in relation to trust with the public. That's why the government has initiated the Ethics and Integrity Commission, updated the ministerial code, is bringing forward legislation on
[31:35]the removal of peerages from disgraced peers in the other place, and is undertaking what is probably the most wide-ranging set of work in relation to ethics and standards in public life for many decades. >> Jackie Baillie.
[31:45]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When this Parliament passed the humble address, it was very clear that the house did not trust the government to do this. That's why we wanted the ISC to do this. It is
[31:57]very clear that there are reductions that are happening beyond the will of that humble motion, the will of Parliament. And if that is the case, does the Minister accept that he has to come to the house to ask for permission? And if they don't do that, he needs to
[32:07]tell us why he won't be doing that. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I refer to my opening statement in relation to compliance with the humble address and the right for government to withhold information subject to public interest duties. For
[32:19]example, the names and contact details of junior officials. In relation to the humble address and the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, all reductions that are in relation to national security or international relations have been submitted to the
[32:30]committee and agreed in line with the humble address. >> Alex Cole-Hamilton. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given the scale and significance of the Manderson files due to be released, why does the Minister not accept that the review of
[32:41]those files over Witsun recess would be a good use of everyone's time? With questions to the Minister being put after the 1st of June when we return. Is it because Ministers are intent to limit
[32:52]scrutiny by this house? Because that's exactly how it looks like to me and it looks like that to my constituents. >> Mr. Speaker, he's wrong. The intent is to increase scrutiny, not to decrease it.
[33:03]>> To Ashley Fault. >> Mr. Speaker, does the Chief Secretary recognize just how damning it is of the government's lack of regard for transparency and accountability that the
[33:14]ISC finds itself in the position of having to publicly condemn its actions? >> The question about the committee statement is for the committee, Mr. Speaker. As I've set out, we've complied
[33:25]fully with the humble address and the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. >> Oh my word. Let's work our way around. So, David Davis. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, given
[33:36]the applies directly to the Minister. Can I draw the House's attention to the motion brought by the now Prime Minister on the 4th of December 2018 following non-compliance with a previous
[33:48]humble address in which it starts that this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on the 3rd 13th
[33:59]of November 2018. It should be noted that that motion was passed by this House. We've just debated an area where the government may potentially be in contempt of the House. Indeed, the
[34:11]obfuscation we've heard looks like that. It's important to the House and indeed the government knows of the precedents in this area and I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that if after we've received
[34:22]the next tranche of documents, the humble address has not been met in full or indeed that we haven't been told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I will seek to bring such a motion in the future.
[34:33]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> But let me just try and deal with this one. Look, what the door wants to do is continue the debate. So, this might be able to have our bias for all those that are trying to catch my eye. A very
[34:44]experienced member, like Sir David, won't leave it here. I know he will pursue it through many other avenues that will be available to him. And I suggest it will be coming back at some point. And just to say to the house,
[34:56]I've also had a letter from the ISC, and at some point, I will also need to respond to that. So, it isn't quite the end of the story yet. I'm coming right Dr. Kieran Mullan.
[35:07]>> Same experience as my colleague to the left. The Minister has said that the documents are ready to publish, and that the only issue is securing government time to do that on the first day back on the 1st of June. What what advice can
[35:19]the Speaker provide us and the whole house as to what other mechanisms are available to make sure there is time on that day if the government are willing to allocate the time for the measure? >> That is a matter for me. It is a matter
[35:29]for the government, thankfully. What I would say is that it is, as I understand it, a very large amount of documents. There is another question that has been mentioned. It's the ability to print
[35:41]such an amount to make it available to the house. What I would say is I've been advised that it will be coming as soon as possible, hopefully. And I don't want to speak for the Minister,
[35:52]but rest assured, it won't be left. But I think it is important that we do have time to go through it. It may have been good reading for the whips. Others may be campaigning. So, let us say that I'm
[36:04]keeping a very close eye on that. But I do understand there is a big issue about printing something this high in the amount of document. So, it's not quite as straightforward as just presenting it. Easy as that.
[36:15]>> Mark Francois. >> Thank you, sir. Further again to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister's excuse for not guaranteeing that the documents will be available by the 18th of June is
[36:27]that he would need to secure parliamentary time. This is news to some of us who've been here a while and understand that the government effectively control the timetable of Parliament.
[36:37]Indeed, every Thursday when the House is sitting, they make a business statement and tell us what's coming up for the next 2 weeks. So, Mr. Speaker, are you aware of anything in standing orders or Erskine May that would prevent them from
[36:48]making a business statement on Thursday and naming a day for publication after the Whitsun recess? >> We love speculation. I didn't quite hear
[36:57]the Minister say or worried about the by-election. I would say, and I know the Secretary of State, that he would also
[37:06]want to ensure this House informed ASAP. I will be looking to ensure that happens as well. So, please, let us calm down. Let's not speculate too much, and let us
[37:17]see, and hopefully, Whitsun might bring some generosity to some of the members. I think they need the sunshine a little bit more.
[37:24]Right, that now completes point four. Take care.
[37:43]Order. Nominations closed at 1:00 this afternoon for candidates yesterday afternoon. The candidate for the post of chair of the Backbench Committee.
[37:54]One nomination has been received. A ballot will therefore not be held. I congratulate Bob Blackman on his re-election as chair of the Backbench
[38:04]Committee. Well done, Bob. Please. >> Mr. Speaker, can I thank the House for the confidence you've shown in me, and I will endeavor to ensure that backbenchers get the opportunity to
[38:15]debate issues that they wish to debate in this chamber and in Westminster Hall as much as possible. Can I use your good offices to prevail on the government whips, the opposition whips, and indeed
[38:26]the Liberal whips to ensure they nominate their members of the committee as fast as possible, preferably by tomorrow, so the committee can get up and working as in the new session to
[38:37]formulate those debates as soon as the government allows us time. >> Yeah, I cannot endorse more than what the member has absolutely said. Sooner we get the committee working, sooner we get the debates coming through. And once again, I want to thank him for what he's
[38:49]put in already and the experience he's brought to this position. Right. We now come to the next statement, Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi
[38:59]Alexander. >> Mr. Speaker, with permission, I'd like to make a statement on HS2. Last summer, I stood at this dispatch box and promised we would be straight
[39:10]with the British people, not just about the appalling mess we inherited, but how we would fundamentally reset the HS2 project. Today, I'm publishing the
[39:21]latest parliamentary report and the Lovegrove report, an assessment of what past failings in the delivery of HS2 means for the civil service and wider
[39:32]public sector. This was a cabinet secretary investigation commissioned by the Prime Minister last year. I would also like to take this opportunity to
[39:41]update honorable members on the latest stage of the HS2 reset. But Mr. Speaker, if I may, let me remind the house of the litany of failure we
[39:52]inherited in July 2024. Costs soared by 37 billion pounds under the previous government alone. Billions
[40:02]of taxpayers' money was sunk into phase two work for the sections north of Birmingham before they were abruptly canceled. Huge contracts were handed out
[40:14]without improvement in price, despite the Oakervee reviews recommendation to negotiate a better position. Instead of signaling the country's ambition, HS2
[40:26]became a symbol of this country's decline. And after more than 5 years of construction and over 40 billion pounds spent, the country was no closer to
[40:37]having an operational HS2 railway than when construction first began. That is the shocking legacy of the previous government. And I'm afraid it gets
[40:47]worse. I can today confirm the previous government spent most of HS2's budget without laying a single meter of its
[40:57]track. Today is about ending that era of neglect. New CEO Mark Wild and Chair Mike Brown have an almost impossible
[41:08]task on their hands. As Mark put it to me recently, it's like changing the engine of an airplane mid-flight.
[41:17]However, the new leadership team at HS2 is turning things around. Six major construction milestones were reached earlier than planned in the past year.
[41:28]The organization is more focused on the things that matter, with 300 back office roles removed. HS2 Limited is reviewing its supply
[41:38]chain contracts and the incentives within them to ensure we finish the job at the lowest reasonable cost. And it is managing those contractors
[41:49]properly now to make sure supplier performance is up to scratch. Finally, we're seeing improved oversight, with HS2's leadership now receiving real-time
[41:59]updates, helping to prevent delays, and keep construction to time. But there's no getting away from the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the vast
[42:09]majority of HS2's previous budget was blown on completing around a third of the entire project.
[42:19]And over the past year, Mark Wild and HS2 Limited have worked closely with me and my department to assess the remaining work to be done.
[42:30]They have now provided me with updated costs and timescales, which I can share with the house. It gives me no pleasure to say the
[42:40]expected cost of completing HS2 is now between 87.7 billion and 102.7
[42:49]billion pounds, priced in 2025. Two-thirds of this increase is down to past misunderstanding of the work required, underestimation and
[43:01]inefficiency, issues within the control of HS2 Limited, some of its suppliers, and previous governments. The remaining third is linked to
[43:11]inflation, which was not factored into previous cost estimates regularly enough. On timings, I said last year that I see
[43:21]no route by which trains could be running by 2033. We now expect first services to run from Old Oak Common to Birmingham Curzon
[43:30]Street between May 2036 and October 2039. And where the previous government could not say when the full HS2 scheme between
[43:41]Euston and Handsacre Junction would be delivered, I now expect that will happen between May 2040 and December 2043. Lessons have been learned from the
[43:52]Stuart review, meaning HS2's cost and schedules are now built on more solid foundations with credible estimates published as ranges to ensure they
[44:03]better stand the test of time. Colleagues may feel that they've heard all of this before, and I understand that skepticism, but it is different this time.
[44:14]HS2 Limited have now used the same experts and methods behind the successful Crossrail reset. They have priced future work against what we've learned so far, and their homework has
[44:26]been checked by an independent panel of experts. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, if this seems like an obscene increase in time and
[44:35]costs, it is because it is. And if it seems like I'm angry, it is because I am. I am angry on behalf of taxpayers and affected communities who have been
[44:47]swindled by the failures of successive Conservative governments. I'm angry on behalf of the thousands of rail and construction workers giving their all on
[44:57]this project who do not deserve to have their industry tarnished in this way. And I'm angry on behalf of passengers who continue to wait for the new
[45:07]services and new opportunities they deserve. Madam Deputy Speaker, despite this sorry situation, we are determined to claw
[45:16]back as much time and money as possible. Not only does the Love Grove report corroborate the Stuart review's damning assessment of the decision-making environment under the previous
[45:27]government, but it also talks about the original gold-plating of HS2. It talks about the focus, and I quote, "on the highest possible speeds,
[45:38]resulting in bespoke and highly engineered design." Madam Deputy Speaker, to translate, it was a massively over-specced folly with the prospect of the fastest trains
[45:49]anywhere in the world tickling the fancy of Conservative ministers. If we were the If we were a country the size of China, I could understand it, but we are
[46:00]not. Passengers just want reliable trains that turn up when they're supposed to, more services and more seats. They want a common sense approach
[46:10]that gets them the railway they deserve, not a vanity project with trains so fast that proper testing couldn't be done until track and railway systems were
[46:20]complete. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask Mark Wild to remove the gold plating and complexity from this project. Today, I have accepted his
[46:32]recommendation to align HS2 speeds already delivered with already with speeds already delivered on other European high-speed networks.
[46:42]That still means we will run some of the fastest trains in Europe with speeds reaching 320 km/h. But crucially, it lowers the cost of
[46:53]testing. It makes delivering the project less risky, and it could realize savings of up to 2.5 billion pounds and could
[47:02]save at least a year in delivery time. Now, I realize that there will be those who will say this is all too much and we should just
[47:12]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
[47:24]half-finished structures strewn across the English countryside, a relic to what could have been. And so, this Labour government is clear. We will deliver HS2
[47:36]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,
[47:47]Truss, and Sunak created the world's >> I'm sure the Secretary of State did not mean to use the Honorable right Honorable Member for Richmond and North Allerton's name.
[47:58]Heidi Allen for Wrexham. >> My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Um, previous Prime Ministers, in my view, created the world's most expensive slow-motion car crash, and they barely
[48:09]batted an eyelid. Under this government, we've rolled up our sleeves and done the hard yards, put in the right team in place, and being honest about the scale of the challenge.
[48:20]Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that this statement today will be met with cynicism and anger. But, I say with genuine pride and conviction that I
[48:29]believe we are finally starting to see real delivery. Tunneling tunneling machines are currently working under Londoners' feet to make HS2 to Euston a
[48:40]reality. Birmingham skyline is changing before our eyes with new film studios, a sports quarter, and housing all being built around the new Curzon Street
[48:50]station. This is national renewal in action. Madam Deputy Speaker, when I last worked with Mark Wild and Mike Brown, we took the delayed and
[49:00]over-budget Crossrail project and turned it into the Elizabeth Line, which has now served more than half a billion passengers. We've done it before, we'll do it again, and I commend this
[49:11]statement to the House. >> Shadow Minister, Jerome Mayhew. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm very grateful to this uh Secretary of State for giving me
[49:21]advance sight of her statement. The Secretary of State's comments today demonstrate not only the challenges faced in the past and the reasons action was taken to reduce the scope of HS2,
[49:33]but also the significant challenges ahead if it is finally to be delivered. And, it's true that the early years of the HS2 project were beset with delay and cost overruns,
[49:43]with HS2 Limited failing to maintain tight control of the budget, and frankly, Department for Transport allowing them to get away with it. It was for this reason that the previous
[49:55]government appointed Mark Wild, OBE, as the new chief executive of HS2 Limited with the clear instruction to get a grip of costs and robustly oversee this
[50:06]project. And it's apparent from today's statement that HS2's leadership under Mark Wild is taking those steps to try and achieve this. Where there are actions that can reduce
[50:17]costs in the long run, then this side of the house will clearly support them. But given concerns about trust in the project, I hope the government and HS2 Limited will set out in detail how they
[50:28]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 that we face in this country.
[50:40]When the Prime Minister was campaigning during the last general election, we heard a range of promises about housing and infrastructure goals that have completely floundered when they have
[50:50]come into contact with reality. It's why on this side of the house, we propose substantial changes to environmental legislation to give us the freedoms needed to cut environmental red
[51:01]tape both for business, but also for large infrastructure projects. Even the Prime Minister does not support regulations that lead to a 100
[51:10]million-pound back tunnel, does she? This must be addressed because the Secretary of State has made a number of strong statements, and if she is angry as she said she is, those statements
[51:22]must be backed up by consequential legislative changes that stop these cost overruns from occurring in the future. Turning to the specific,
[51:33]I wish to press the Secretary of State on matters on which those in the sector already have indicated that they want assurances. For example, Madam Deputy Speaker, what
[51:43]does the new project cost figures include? Does it include all the rolling stock under the new plans? To what extent is Euston funding
[51:54]included in these new estimates? And does it include signaling? Does the government intend to set out precisely what is being funded and when the various elements will be delivered
[52:04]under their new timetable? And can the Minister also explain what steps the government has taken to improve HS2 Limited's performance when it comes to settling claims with those impacted by
[52:15]construction since she herself has separately highlighted that this is an area that requires improvement. Of course, HS2 doesn't operate in a
[52:26]vacuum. Uh on the same day that this statement is being uh put before the house, it's been announced that the government pressure will result in one in seven rail services being cut on one
[52:37]of Avanti West Coast routes following a government request to reduce expenditure. Given the comments made about the project, is it appropriate that the
[52:47]services on the West Coast will offer fewer services to passengers? Ultimately, the government is right to take steps to reduce costs on this project. Errors were made and should be
[52:58]rectified, and I'm glad that the government continues to support Mark Wild and his team as they work towards opening HS2. >> Thank you, uh Madam Deputy Speaker. Um
[53:11]I'm grateful to the Shadow Rail Minister uh for his questions and indeed for the tone um in which he presented his case. He's not He wasn't quite as bombastic at the dispatch box
[53:23]um as he normally is, and so I can only assume that um perhaps uh perhaps he was considering making an apology for the dreadful mess that the previous
[53:34]government left this project in. Um I didn't hear one, um but look, I I accept the the the manner in which he made his points. I do also though question where
[53:46]the Shadow Secretary of State is today. This is not the first time, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Shadow Transport Secretary has run scared from an oral
[53:56]statement and I can only assume that's because he's frankly embarrassed by his party's abject record when it comes to transport. Um he talked about the
[54:07]appointment of the new CEO, Mark Wild, under the previous government. I do have to say to him gently that it's a bit like an arsonist demanding praise for
[54:17]calling the fire brigade because let me quote what Mark Wild said about what he had inherited when he spoke to the Public Accounts Committee just days
[54:27]after he started in his job. We are in a completely unacceptable position. We have to acknowledge that HS2 has failed
[54:38]in its mission to control costs. Madam Deputy Speaker, the honorable gentleman asked me a number of specific questions and I will answer them directly. He asks
[54:49]how reducing the speed to 320 km/h will save money and ensure delivery. To be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, this
[55:00]will mean that trains on HS2 are running as fast as bullet trains in Japan. We're making three scope changes in this
[55:10]announcement today. One, reducing the speed. Two, reducing automatic train operation. And three, ensuring that the signaling
[55:18]that we put in on HS2 is aligned with the ETCS system that is being rolled out on the TransPennine route upgrade and across the Network Rail
[55:29]system more broadly. We will depend on proven technologies. We are not taking a punt on world first. I think that is the
[55:40]way to reduce risk in the delivery of this program and potentially reduce cost as well by up to 2.5 billion pounds. He
[55:51]asked me about back tunnels. Well, I can tell him we are building no more back tunnels on HS2 and that this government has changed legislation through the Planning and Infrastructure Act which
[56:02]could mean a different approach approach to protected species in future. And I gently say to him, who was overseeing
[56:11]this project when HS2 took the decision to proceed with the back tunnel? It wasn't this government, it was his
[56:20]government and we've taken actions to ensure that regulations in future do not get in the way of building the homes and
[56:30]infrastructure that this country needs. He asked me specific questions about whether the revised cost ranges include a number of different areas and I can confirm
[56:41]that on Euston that there is provision within this range for the delivery of Euston. Although we've also gone out to
[56:50]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
[57:02]public private partnership. Um the new the signaling costs are also included in these cost ranges. Um he asked me
[57:11]rightly about what action HS2 is taking to improve its performance when it comes to settling claims on land and property.
[57:22]Um I know that there were very many honorable members in this house whose constituents will have experienced frustrations in this regard. And in the the letter I recently wrote to the chair
[57:33]of HS2 setting out his priorities for the year, I was clear that I wanted greater attention on this area. And finally, he asked me about some of the minor changes that Avanti West Coast
[57:45]have made recently to their summer timetable. They came to me with a proposition to better optimize their service pattern to meet the demand in
[57:55]the summer months when actually, if we can save money because we're not moving trains around the country with half-empty carriages, as a responsible
[58:05]government, I think it's reasonable for us to look at that. What I would also say to him in the timetable that was introduced on Sunday is that we've seen
[58:14]significant enhancements, including uh additional seats on London Northwestern services between London and Birmingham. We're seeing the most regular uh Mid
[58:26]Corridor Metro um service in 60 years. And so, where his government failed to invest in Britain's rail network, this government
[58:36]is doing exactly the opposite and making sure that people across the country have got the trains that they need and that they deserve. >> Transport Select Committee, Ruth Cadbury.
[58:47]>> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the Secretary of State for being honest to this House and for grasping the nub of the problem. It
[58:57]shouldn't need the publication of the Love Growth report and for today's statement to know that the cost and timetable overruns on HS2 started uh
[59:08]long before uh because the last government wanted spades in the ground before the designs and the costs and the permits were ready. And then, they
[59:18]canceled the project uh half the project um uh so we have the uh Aston to Old Oak Common project. I'm so glad that the government picked up that and is moving
[59:29]ahead on the on the Euston element as well. But we because we had the Stuart review and the Ogilvy report to tell us what went
[59:39]wrong, too. I'm not going to My question is not actually going to be on HS2 because we've got the rail minister and HS2 chief exec coming to us tomorrow. But elements that we
[59:51]that I believe are picked up in the love grow report. What is the Secretary of State doing now to ensure that from now on
[1:00:01]essential transport projects, starting with the lower Thames crossing and the Northern powerhouse rail project, don't
[1:00:11]go the same way? Will she assure me that she won't put on the high vis and the hard hats for the photo opportunities until all of the detail, all of the
[1:00:22]permits, and all of the cost budgets are in place first? >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My
[1:00:32]honorable friend, the chair of the select committee, is right that the problems of HS2 were born many, many years ago. And the
[1:00:43]fact that the civil engineering is 4 years delayed isn't a product of decisions by this government or the current management of HS2, but it is, as she says, about overly optimistic cost
[1:00:53]estimates, construction starting before designs were mature, insufficiently controlled delivery, poor contractual arrangements, gold plating, constant changes in policy,
[1:01:05]and scope. So, she's entirely right on that. She asked me a direct question about what lessons we are learning when it comes to the delivery of future transport infrastructure. If I take
[1:01:17]Northern powerhouse rail, we've worked closely with local leaders to agree scope in advance, to agree priorities
[1:01:26]and sequencing so that we know what elements of the overall program will be delivered first. We've set an overall budget cap for that and we're
[1:01:37]also securing local contributions to ensure that we can maximize the economic and regeneration potential of that new transport infrastructure in those
[1:01:48]places. So, we are learning the lessons. >> Liberal Democrat spokesperson Ollie Glover. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I start by thanking the Secretary of State for her candor on this matter and
[1:01:59]to the to the scale of the HS2 disaster and also for the specificity of the range of dates that she has provided. And certainly we on these benches agree with her intent. We need to make the
[1:02:10]make the most of this shambles and it would indeed be better to do something with what has been built rather than scrap it and hope that that resets the past. It's also good news that the Secretary of State has outlined
[1:02:21]commitment to proven technology rather than the innovations of the future, warp drive and whatever else was being talked about before. And particularly use of ETCS as signaling is welcome for
[1:02:32]that. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we in this country know how to build high-speed lines because we did between London St. Pancras and the Channel Tunnel at reasonable cost. And of course, our French and Spanish allies also know how to do it. And the
[1:02:43]high-speed line from Tours to Bordeaux in France took 15 years including all the planning and all the construction. So, whilst the Secretary of State highlighting Crossrail's expertise on this expert panel she mentioned is
[1:02:54]welcome, is she sure that that expertise is the same as needed for the more specialized thing of high-speed rail construction? And is she confident that her expert panel has the high-speed construction
[1:03:06]and commissioning specific skills that we need either from the UK or abroad to turn this situation around? >> Um I'm grateful to the honorable
[1:03:16]gentleman for his support for the overall approach um that we are taking. Um I am uh reassured that both within the
[1:03:27]executive leadership of HS2, we have the capability and capacity that is now needed. That wasn't the case previously. There's a new financial director, a new
[1:03:37]commercial director uh who is in place at the moment. And I'm reassured that the six new appointments to the board of HS2 that the new chair has led over the
[1:03:48]last year uh have the right skills in place. Can I also assure him though on the expert panel and the multiple layers of assurance that goes on uh in terms of
[1:03:59]the new plan and who has looked at it. Um we have real expertise um in the layer of defense three panel
[1:04:10]um including Kenny Laid, Andrew Poole, Rachel Maclean, Colin Brown, Lauren Trosha, Miles Ashley. Uh we've also included um a rep from Nista
[1:04:21]uh on that. Um and then we also have the involvement of the project representative as well. So, this is a really uh significant and substantial group of
[1:04:31]people who have all got um you know, their uh elbow to the wheel in terms of making this project now a success. >> Laura Smith
[1:04:43]Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The consequences of a failure to effectively manage this project by the party opposite are felt nowhere more deeply than in Crewe and Nantwich with jobs and
[1:04:55]regeneration benefits lost as well as 11 million pounds in sunk costs for Cheshire East Council. I welcome the shift in emphasis from speed to
[1:05:05]capacity, but the network is at capacity between Birmingham and Crewe now, not in 10 or 20 years' time. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to more
[1:05:16]urgently looking at how we address capacity constraints between Birmingham and Crewe? And will her department engage with Cheshire East Council on plans they have to mitigate the
[1:05:26]investment they lost as a result of the decision to cancel the line in the Midlands? >> Um my right my honorable friend has been a great advocate for his constituents
[1:05:37]and I totally agree uh that the focus now, as it should have been uh all along, is about delivering more seats and trains that run on time. We will be conducting a further
[1:05:49]feasibility study into connectivity north of Birmingham, which will consider all options and the impact of each option on economic growth, housing,
[1:05:59]capacity on the rail network, journey times, and resilience, as well as looking at how we might design, consent, fund the scheme, the the specification of any future scheme. And so, I'm
[1:06:11]willing to continue uh adopt a dialogue with him about those issues. Smith. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State in her statement said she was angry and I can assure her I've
[1:06:22]been consistently angry about this unaffordable, unwanted railway since it was ever green-lit. Angry on behalf of my constituents that have to live under hellish conditions while it's
[1:06:31]constructed. Land owners still waiting for payment for land taken. Our roads churned up by construction traffic going on. Fixed mitigation projects uh uh promised a decade ago that still don't
[1:06:42]actually have the money to deliver them. I heard nothing about any of those challenges in the Secretary of State's statement. But class got very specifically about noise modeling. In
[1:06:52]Wendover, hundreds of homes and trains were already going to come through Wendover at 320 km an hour. Already, hundreds of homes under modeling are
[1:07:02]found to be above the permitted decibel limit that the WHO sets down. So, under the new speed that she has set for HS2, will she commit to the government fully
[1:07:13]remodeling, certainly through Buckinghamshire, the noise impacts of this railway on real people once it's built, and come back to the house with a commitment that those levels will not be
[1:07:23]above the WHO guidance? >> Secretary of State. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do appreciate that the honorable gentleman's constituents, um, in Buckinghamshire,
[1:07:34]um, will have experienced, uh, considerable, uh, disruption to their lives as a result of this construction project. And I know that it is the case that some of the time those who live
[1:07:44]nearest by, uh, infrastruct- infrastructure schemes, um, tend to take more of the pain before the gain is delivered in terms of the new service. Um,
[1:07:54]I will look into the matter that he raises around the noise impacts, um, of a lower speed railway. Um, my
[1:08:03]instinct is that the noise is likely to be less, but it if it is any different from that, I will certainly, uh, write back to the honorable gentleman and let him know. >> Dave Robertson.
[1:08:14]>> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Um, the Secretary of State will not be surprised to see me rise to raise issues with HS2 yet again, and she is very right to be angry about the scale of the
[1:08:25]failings that have been laid out in the reports today. She is angry. I am angry, but that absolutely pales in into insignificance when compared to the anger of my constituents who have had to
[1:08:37]fight through 17 years of dealing with the failures of HS2 Limited. Part of the announcement today is that we will face potentially another 13 years before they even continue to carry
[1:08:48]on with work north of Curzon Street and connecting into Hansacre Junction, all of which, by the way, is north of Birmingham. The community is furious. My constituents are potentially the most,
[1:08:59]or certainly one of the most, uh, impacted by HS2. Just last month, they closed the A38 going past Lichfield, forcing 70,000 vehicles a day onto local roads in the
[1:09:10]city. Constituents are fed up. So, can she give some reassurance that the works at Streethay, which are still ongoing, one of the only two places north of Curzon Street where work is
[1:09:19]continuing, will be completed on time by October? And that the department will look very, very closely at what mitigations they are putting in place for communities like mine, who, by the
[1:09:29]sounds of it, could face a third of a century from the start of this progress before trains actually start traveling through our part of the world and the significant impact it's had on our
[1:09:39]community. >> Um I thank my honorable friend for that question, and he has been a fearsome advocate for his constituents on
[1:09:50]this issue, and I know that he will be meeting with the rail minister later today to talk about constituency impacts. I have heard nothing to suggest that the
[1:10:00]works at Streethay will not be delivered on time. If there is any latest information that I haven't been apprised of, I will certainly come back to my honorable
[1:10:11]friend and let him know. Of course, it is important that we do continue with the works north of Birmingham up to Handsacre Junction because this is the
[1:10:22]way that HS2 will connect into the wider rail network. And whilst in the short term, this will this project will
[1:10:31]improve connections between London and Birmingham, in the longer term, this is about improving the frequency, capacity, and reliability of connections to the
[1:10:41]northwest and beyond to Scotland as well. So, I appreciate his constituents' patience on this project, but it is important for the national interest. >> Sir Jeremy Wright. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy
[1:10:52]Speaker. 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 is reduced to roughly what she's proposing, it would
[1:11:04]open up a number of alternative route options, avoiding the open countryside that the line now cuts across. But can I counter-intuitively ask her to be a little more ambitious despite everything
[1:11:15]she's said about high-speed rail. She will recognize that the strategic benefits of high-speed rail, as they were put to this house originally, were about a network nationwide, not simply a
[1:11:26]line between London and Birmingham. So can I ask her to state, hopefully at least, that this and future governments will seek to expand that network so that what we're focused on on high-speed rail
[1:11:38]is not going faster, but on going further. >> Um the honorable gentleman uh makes a very interesting point, and I would say to him that one of the things I'm most
[1:11:49]keen to do is to ensure that this huge investment that we are putting into HS2 between London and Birmingham actually results in an improved passenger
[1:12:01]experience for people more broadly across the rest of the country. That's one of the reasons why when we made the announcement about Northern Powerhouse Rail earlier this year that we also
[1:12:11]announced a feasibility study um about a new connection between Birmingham and Manchester. Um and whilst it's slightly
[1:12:20]too soon um to get into the specifics of uh exactly what that would look like, um I can assure him that the thinking and the planning is happening in the
[1:12:30]department at the moment to make sure that this investment unlocks the maximum benefit across the country. >> John McDonnell. Given the huge sum she's talking about, what
[1:12:42]what I want to raise might appear relatively trivial, but actually for my community it's quite significant. It is that um we have a charity called Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre
[1:12:51]that ran a lake for to enable local young people in particular to learn to sail and canoe. That lake has been taken over by HS2 as part of the route.
[1:13:02]Therefore, it's not been available for 6 years now. An alternative has not been identified until very recently. Again, part of the decision-making with regard
[1:13:12]to HS2 itself as well. It's meant that charity now all its reserves have now gone and the staff are being laid off. And I just want to could the Secretary of State arrange for a meeting with
[1:13:23]her officials and HS2 that I can meet them to talk through the opportunities that there might be to assist the charity to continue providing such an excellent service to our community.
[1:13:34]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> I'd be very happy um to ask relevant officers from HS2 uh to meet with my honorable friend um and to look at options for the Hillingdon Outdoor
[1:13:46]Activity Centre that he mentioned. Um when I look at the scale of some of the structures that are being built on the outskirts of London at the moment, the
[1:13:56]2.1 mile Colne Valley uh viaduct for example, um it it's evident um what a a huge and ambitious construction
[1:14:07]project this is. Um I'm sorry that there will have been uh some impacts on um communities, individual community groups. Um and I would be happy um to
[1:14:17]look at what the alternatives might be. >> Sarah Green. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituents in Chesham and Amersham didn't want HS2 and they've been putting
[1:14:29]up with the disruption of construction for years. Some of them warned that this would be a colossal waste of money and they were right. This
[1:14:41]railway's costing nearly a billion pounds a mile. Every pound of cost overrun is a pound not spent on the local infrastructure my constituents
[1:14:51]actually use and actually need. So given the department's complete failure to date to hold HS2 limited to account, what commitment can the Secretary of
[1:15:01]State give that we won't be here again in a few years time talking about HS2 overspend? >> We have taken a different approach this
[1:15:12]time. Our estimates are based on prices that have been informed by the work that has been done over the last five years.
[1:15:23]I am committed to ensuring that the scope remains the same and we don't have the chopping and changing that characterized the previous government's approach to this project, but I would
[1:15:34]also say to her whilst recognizing there will be some impacts in her constituency that this is a great engineering feat that we are
[1:15:44]involved in delivering the first new terminus station that this country has built in 125 years. New stations at Birmingham Interchange,
[1:15:56]Old Oak Common, Euston, and so whilst I'm always happy to talk to her about the local impacts, I think in terms of the improvements to the rail
[1:16:05]network that HS2 can provide, it is very significant and I think this government is entirely right to be committed to delivering this project to its completion.
[1:16:17]>> Toby Perkins. >> Well thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Member of Parliament for Chesterfield, my constituents at one time hoped they might be beneficiaries of HS2. That seems so many years ago,
[1:16:28]but I share the Secretary of State's fury at the incompetence that's got us to this stage. We wouldn't have supported a program like this if we'd known it was only going to be a line to
[1:16:38]Birmingham. It should be going, as any serious country would, to have high-speed rail up to Manchester and up to Leeds at the very least. I'm very glad that she's laid out today how she's
[1:16:49]going to try and get a grip of this, but can I add to what we've heard from the honorable gentleman from Kenilworth and say Southam and say once the government has managed to demonstrate that under this government we have got a grip of
[1:16:59]the cost and the times, can we start to be more ambitious about reopening discussions around extending it beyond Birmingham up to Manchester and to Leeds? >> As I said to the
[1:17:13]the honorable gentleman from Kenilworth, as part of the announcement that we made about Northern Powerhouse Rail a couple of months ago, we did commit to doing a
[1:17:23]feasibility study on what a future link between Birmingham and Manchester could look like. We've
[1:17:31]not taken any decisions about the route or the specification, the speed at which that new line might need to be built to
[1:17:41]facilitate, but I do recognize that there are significant capacity constraints north of Birmingham and I am keen that we find a way to
[1:17:52]ensure that as we set up Great British Railways, renationalize our railways, that HS2 becomes the spine of the Great British Railways network and unlocks
[1:18:03]capacity, frequency, reliability improvements elsewhere in the country. >> Joy Morrissey >> Yeah, yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the
[1:18:14]Minister in a few in a years' time, few months' time, decides to scrap HS2, you will have my full support. She will have my full support. And
[1:18:25]I just want to know what assurances the Minister can provide in providing better services to our residents for unpaid land claims and
[1:18:37]services and destruction of roads because in Beaconsfield, Marlow, and the South Bucks villages, we have seen nothing but a negative impact from HS2.
[1:18:46]>> Yep. Yeah. >> I am keen that HS2 always uh engages with the community and local businesses
[1:18:56]um with care, with respect, and with rigor. And if that hasn't been her uh experience locally, then I'm aware that she's got an urgent debate later
[1:19:05]today. Um and I know me and other ministers will be only too happy to take that issue away. I do have to disagree with her about this idea that we should
[1:19:17]cancel the project now. Um the chief executive of HS2 in his letter to my department's permanent secretary made very clear
[1:19:27]um that canceling this project and doing the necessary remediation could cost almost as much as completing the line. And we would have those half-completed
[1:19:38]structures strewn around the English countryside. I'm sure that's not something that her constituents uh would wish to see. And that is why why it is right to reset this project and complete
[1:19:50]HS2 uh as I've set out today. >> Mr. Speaker, I'm ready. >> Deputy Speaker, this shocking overspend is equivalent to over a thousand pounds per household in
[1:20:02]the United Kingdom. And families in my constituency and across Britain work very hard to earn money to pay the bills and try and have a reasonable standard of living. It is shocking. HS2 was meant
[1:20:14]to bring considerable benefits to the north of England and to Scotland. More reliable and quicker services to Glasgow and the western central belt of Scotland, more passenger capacity, opportunities for people in the north
[1:20:25]and Scotland for economic growth and reduction of emissions by displacing flights. Uh would the Secretary of State agree to meet with me to discuss what the long-term plan is to improve rail
[1:20:37]services between Scotland and the north of England and the rest of our family of nations so that we have appropriate journey times that are reduced, passenger capacity is at appropriate
[1:20:47]level and services become more reliable. >> My honorable friend is right. This this is shocking and the truth of the matter is that this government is picking up
[1:20:57]the bill for the mess created by the previous government. I would be very happy to meet with my honorable friend to discuss the ways in which we can
[1:21:08]improve capacity, frequency, reliability of services between England and his constituents in Glasgow and I look forward to discussing that in more
[1:21:19]detail with him soon. >> Seamus Logan. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can sense the Secretary of State's anger at the scale, the width and depth
[1:21:31]of the failures in this project. Of course, it was initiated in 2009 2 2009 when Labour were in power. And
[1:21:41]when I look at this collective failure on both sides of this house, yet members opposite are so quick to point out the ferries problem in Scotland. Nothing. It it
[1:21:52]pales into insignificance with the scale of this incompetence. But I want to ask the Secretary of State, the member for Brentford and Isleworth Isleworth, the chair of the
[1:22:02]Transport Select Committee, said on BBC Radio 4's Today program yesterday, "The most important thing and I'm quoting, the most important thing is that HS2 will create a high-speed link between
[1:22:13]London and the northwest and eventually to Scotland." Scottish taxpayers are paying for this folly. So, can the Minister explain when is the
[1:22:22]project, when? She can say 2043 for the rest of the project. When is this project going to extend to Scotland as was suggested yesterday? And how much more in Scotland are we going to be
[1:22:33]expected to pay? And how many years after 2043 will it be delivered? >> I have been clear and I remain clear
[1:22:43]that we will not be extending HS2 north of the West Midlands. What I have announced when I made the Northern Powerhouse Rail announcement a couple of months ago is that we will be doing a
[1:22:54]feasibility study about in the longer term after the delivery of HS2 to Birmingham, after the delivery of East West connectivity across the north of England through
[1:23:06]Northern Powerhouse Rail, how we can then look to invest in improving the infrastructure between Birmingham and
[1:23:16]Manchester. That work will start this summer and I'll be happy to keep him updated. >> supplement and Glenn >> Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the clarity and determination to
[1:23:27]deliver on HS2. Rail investment is infrastructure investment which drives growth. But can I also ask the Minister to look at driving growth between towns as well as between cities
[1:23:37]such as bringing lines like the Calder Valley line into the 21st century. >> Um that philosophy and that approach certainly lies
[1:23:48]behind much of the work that we put together in our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail. He will also be aware that the spending review we announced
[1:23:58]over 15 billion pounds for mayors in city regions to improve connectivity between towns and cities, major centers
[1:24:10]of employment. So the aspirations that he has for his area and his constituents do align very closely with ours. >> Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. My communities in Walsall Common and
[1:24:21]Bloxwich have taken huge amounts of pain long before I was first elected in 2019 and what has further exacerbated that pain has been the conduct of HS2 and its
[1:24:31]subcontractors with communities. I met with Mark Wild, he knows my concerns around that and I and I do take heart in the level of engagement that he's given on that and I hope that continues. But one of the key issues that's affecting
[1:24:42]my communities is the the land that has been taken by HS2 which is yet to be released excluding around Arden Cross which is a a project worth hundreds of millions of pounds including a health
[1:24:53]campus in conjunction with the local mayor, local councils and Warwick University. I'm being told it might take four years. I think it could be done in two. Will the Minister please take a look at this? >> I hope he's reassured that I'm already
[1:25:07]looking at this and I have had discussions with the leadership of HS2 about this and certainly the Member of Parliament for Birmingham Hodge Hill or as it used to be called, I'm not sure whether that's still the
[1:25:19]name of his constituency, has raised this matter with me as well. I'm keen that where it is possible to release land to enable
[1:25:30]development, regeneration, unlock new homes, unlock new work spaces, if that can take place whilst not compromising
[1:25:39]the delivery of HS2 then I'm keen that that happens and there is a piece of work that is underway within HS2 to look at the specific issues in relation to Arden Cross.
[1:25:50]>> Dr. Rupa Huq. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I welcome the honesty and clarity after years and years of sitting opposite conservatives when we didn't know if it was happening at all, where it would start and stop. It was going to be a Y
[1:26:01]shape in the beginning. So, I mean this is good news in a way but also and I and I also echo the um praise for Mark Wild who's met with my residents and for Lord Hendy in the
[1:26:13]other place. But for my residents in Old Oak Common, this fabled area that was once going to be the terminus, it is disappointing about this ever-lengthening timeline. Um, I wonder
[1:26:23]if she might be able to look into opening the Elizabeth Line station a bit earlier because some of them in new builds, like Oaklands Rise, were promised there'd be a brand new station in 2026.
[1:26:35]Surely there should be something in it for them before 2039. >> My honorable friend um
[1:26:44]is right to highlight the fact that uh development is proceeding um in the Old
[1:26:52]Oak area in advance of the completion of the rail network and I'm pleased that actually uh the Old Oak and Park Royal
[1:27:03]Development Corporation have gone out uh to find a development partner to build 8,000 new homes in that area with potentially a thousand started um
[1:27:13]in this Parliament. Um we do need to ensure that any homes or any development that happens there is adequate public transport provision to
[1:27:23]provide for those new residents. Um I will take the specific issue away that she makes about the Elizabeth Line. Um I'm not entirely sure of its feasibility um but I will come back to her with more
[1:27:35]detail. Honorable. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many farmers, small businesses, businesses, and residents have been had the access to their properties disrupted by the
[1:27:45]construction of HS2. The Wilcoxes in my constituency have been battling for over five years to get a simple deed of easement to guarantee access to their property and as a former property
[1:27:55]lawyer, I know that's a very simple document that should have been agreed and without it properties become unmortgageable and unsellable. So could the Secretary of State set out what steps she's taking to ensure that these
[1:28:06]deeds of easement are entered into without further delay? >> Um >> I am sorry to hear of the situation that she described. If she wants to write to
[1:28:16]me about the specific case, um, I will raise it with the leadership of HS2 for her. >> Ann Davies. >> Madam Deputy Presiding Officer, can I thank the Secretary of State for her
[1:28:27]honesty 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
[1:28:39]pounds. While the Scotland and Northern Ireland have their fair share of Barnett consequentials, Wales has nothing. And people in Wales have had enough of being treated as second-class citizens.
[1:28:50]They recently elected a Senedd with a majority of members within it committed to ending this injustice. >> So, will the Secretary of State respect the wishes of the people of Wales and be
[1:29:02]open to talks with the Welsh government on reclassifying HS2 so that Wales no longer pays for it or at least has its fair share of the Barnett consequentials?
[1:29:13]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not true to say that Wales is getting nothing. Um, at the spending review last year, we
[1:29:24]announced 445 million pounds in direct funding to modernize and upgrade Welsh rail. And only a couple of months ago, in February, the UK government, with the
[1:29:34]former Welsh government, announced a long-term pipeline of rail enhancements that could total up to 14 billion pounds. I would be I would be happy, um,
[1:29:43]to discuss, um, rail enhancements with the new leadership of the Senedd. Um, and I look forward to having a constructive working relationship, um,
[1:29:53]with the First Minister and his cabinet. >> Martin Vickers. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having, uh, chaired the, uh, All Party Rail Group for the last 9 of 10 10 years,
[1:30:05]I've seen a procession of ministers and officials come along and give reassurances such as we've heard from the Secretary of State today, and it's hard to believe that her successors will
[1:30:15]not be coming to the house in the the distant future talking about further resets of the project. But could I ask her in
[1:30:25]particular, can she give an assurance that this the spending on HS2 will not affect the announcement she made a few weeks ago about improving other rail services in
[1:30:36]the north. And I know she'd be disappointed if I didn't mention the campaign by myself and the father of the house to improve services to northern Lincolnshire. >> Um the honorable gentleman would expect
[1:30:50]me to have comprehensive discussions with my colleagues in the Treasury before announcing rail enhancements. That's entirely what we have done over the last couple of months, whether that
[1:31:02]was about Northern Powerhouse Rail when we set out those really ambitious plans at the start of the year, or indeed whether it's about the
[1:31:11]anticipated profile of expenditure that will be required over the next 10 years. So I can assure him that anything that I've announced today doesn't change what I announced in January on Northern
[1:31:23]Powerhouse Rail. >> I'm delighted to speak. Before I was 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
[1:31:34]responsible for dispersing funding to communities disrupted by the building of a Warkworth railway line. One of the reasons communities rightly and understandably get grumpy
[1:31:44]when large-scale infrastructure projects affect their communities is when there's no obvious benefit to them when a railway line goes through but there's no station for them to benefit from. What assurance can the Secretary of State
[1:31:56]give the house that she's looking at some of the things that can be learned positively from what's happened with HS2, particularly looking at how we strengthen and make clearer the link
[1:32:06]between community benefit and large-scale infrastructure projects where the immediate benefit isn't obvious to those communities. I think one of the failings with HS2 has
[1:32:17]been to focus on the speed of the line and the four stations when actually one of the major benefits of HS2 is to free
[1:32:26]up capacity on the existing West Coast Main Line between London and Birmingham to enable better regional services, to enable more freight, for example, to
[1:32:38]transfer from lorries on the road and get that onto the rail network. For too long this project has been about speed and it's not been about seats and
[1:32:48]reliability. And I think through this reset we are changing that and we are determined to ensure, as I said earlier, that this is the spine of the Great British rail network
[1:32:59]that we will deliver as we renationalize the railways. >> Tom Gordon. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her Secretary of State for her statement. It's
[1:33:10]outrageous to hear the waste and 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
[1:33:21]cancelled and comparatively we get less funding per head for transport than counterparts in the south. So, does the Secretary of State agree with me that a small amount of money saved from reducing the scope and speed would be better spent on schemes like Northern
[1:33:33]Powerhouse Rail, reinstating the York area capacity scheme estimated at only around 150 million pounds that would unlock the bottleneck at York station and deliver benefit across the north? >> I can't spend this money twice.
[1:33:48]I I have taken the decision to reduce the speed of HS2 to 320 km/h. We believe
[1:33:57]that could save up to 2.5 billion pounds and result in delivery a year earlier. Given how long people have been waiting for this new railway, I think that's the
[1:34:08]responsible thing to do so that people can get on these trains sooner than they otherwise would. I understand he's a fearsome advocate for those rail improvements in his constituency and I'm
[1:34:20]sure we'll talk about those more when we get to the next transport questions. >> That's Adam. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The truth of the matter is that despite spending taxpayers over 103 billion
[1:34:31]pounds of taxpayers money, my son has laid more rail track from his Lego set than the previous government has done from the HS2 program. But seriously, there's considerations and concerns from whistleblowers who
[1:34:43]have alleged that costs were deliberately hidden from Parliament, documents were shredded, and staff who spoke out were sacked. So, before another penny is spent of the of the
[1:34:53]British taxpayer, how will the Minister ensure in the future there are accountable binding mechanisms to stop contractors and executives from misleading this house again? >> He is right to raise these very
[1:35:08]important issues and we will always take any whistleblowing complaints with the utmost seriously utmost seriousness. Can I also reassure
[1:35:18]him when it comes to fraud that as part of the research that HS2 is going through, it is strengthening its
[1:35:27]counter fraud capability, its internal controls and processes. Because when you're spending this amount of taxpayers money, you should treat it as if it was
[1:35:38]your own and the care and attention that you would apply to your own money. And so, we're taking all necessary steps to make sure that we strengthen the controls within the organization to
[1:35:47]ensure value for money for the taxpayer. >> Tim Farron. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State for reeling out a list of very depressing dates in the far
[1:35:58]future, uh which leads more all but the youngest of us to contemplate our mortality. Uh and what is also What is also depressing, um is the serious lack
[1:36:09]of investment in rail infrastructure in the northwest north of Manchester. It's an ongoing issue. Now, I get that HS2 has sucked up money, energy, and and
[1:36:19]attention, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State might seek to put this right by being creative with the use of the existing mainline. For instance, would she work with Network Rail, myself, Westmorland
[1:36:30]and Furness Council to advance the cause of reopening stations like Shap and Tebay, ensuring massively improved public transport links for rural North Westmorland? >> Secretary of State
[1:36:41]If the honorable gentleman, the right honorable gentleman would like to write to me about the case for reopening Shap and Tebay, I would gladly consider it. We
[1:36:52]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
[1:37:04]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'm happy
[1:37:14]to look at the specifics of the scheme that he suggests. >> Preet Kaur Gill >> Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the Minister for delivering this really important update in the House rather than at party conference as the previous
[1:37:26]Tory Prime Minister did. I think what's really struck me about this debate is that the cost of HS2 is now measured in the hundreds of billions, but what we're spending on active travel is measured in
[1:37:37]the hundreds of millions. The government previously committed, I think it was only 600 million until 2030 on active travel. And projects there, things like the Transpennine Greenway, would never
[1:37:48]deliver enormous benefits to my constituents. So, would she reflect on the differential between how much is being spent on active travel and this project? >> Thank you. I would gently correct him.
[1:38:02]We may be talking about tens of billions when it comes to HS2. We are not talking about hundreds of billions when we talk about HS2. He makes a fair point about
[1:38:13]the importance of investment in walking and cycling. The government is due to launch its cycling and walking strategy, the third iteration of it. And
[1:38:24]we are backing that with 600 million pounds worth of investment. And we realize the benefits that actually active travel, people walking and cycling more, using public transport can
[1:38:36]have not just for people's own health. It can have environmental benefits, economic benefits as well. And it's something that me and the local transport minister care deeply about and will ensure that
[1:38:48]we make progress on. >> Jim Shannon. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the Secretary of State very much for her statement and for her positivity and and trying to take make better
[1:38:58]models better in relation to where we are. The Secretary of State talks about maximizing international standards and reshaping governance to find efficiencies. Yet my constituents in Northern Ireland
[1:39:09]are facing critical infrastructure deficits of their own. If this fundamental reset is truly about driving economic growth and to maximize
[1:39:19]value across the United Kingdom, can the Secretary of State please very genuinely explicitly outline how the billions clawed back from streamlining HS2 will
[1:39:29]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. Thank you.
[1:39:40]>> Thank you. Well, I congratulate my the honorable gentleman on leveraging in a question on air
[1:39:49]passenger duty into a statement on HS2. Now, my honorable friend is right. He never misses an opportunity.
[1:39:59]You know, I I am obviously very concerned to ensure that connectivity between the mainland UK and Northern
[1:40:08]Ireland uh