What will be Government’s Plan B if HS2 hits the buffers?

A ONCE-in-a-lifetime opportunity to press ahead with a game-changing programme which will revolutionise our trading patterns, bring our country together and change the perception of this great nation to our global partners for years to come.

Sound familiar? It’s fair to say the events of the last two weeks have brought this narrative into sharper context. Of course, I’m referring to the announcements that the Government will be conducting an independent review into the HS2 programme and that the opening of Phase One is due to be delayed by a minimum of three years, along with incurring additional costs in the region of £22bn.

Firstly, the news on the delayed opening of Phase One is disappointing but not unexpected. Infrastructure projects of this scale rarely open on time (Crossrail is the latest example) and the increase in costs is also something that needs to be anchored in its full context.

Clearly, a project of this scope shouldn’t be presented with a blank cheque and needs to consistently deliver value for money for the taxpayers. However, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the investment we make now will benefit our country for the next century, not simply the next decade (think about the investment made by the Victorians on inter-city rail travel and how we still benefit from those links today as a case in point).

Running concurrently is the formal review which will examine the projects’ benefits, its affordability, its efficiency along with its scope and relationship with Northern Powerhouse Rail. Chaired by Douglas Oakervee, it’s essentially up to this panel to decide whether and how the project should proceed.

On the day of the announcement, Mr Oakervee’s staff contacted the Chamber to see if we could bring together key regional stakeholders in Greater Birmingham within 24 hours to make the case for this once-in-a generation infrastructure project.

It was a challenge we took up with great gusto and I’m pleased to say we managed to gather academics, council leaders and prominent business executives to present an impassioned defence of the venture and underline its strategic importance for the region as a whole. Given the scale of the decisions at stake, its seems ludicrous that the panel only has a couple of months to make judgements of such magnitude which are likely to have wide-ranging repercussions for years to come. With a general election potentially on the horizon, the danger is these announcements will be used by detractors of the scheme (some of which quite clearly have the ear of the PM) to make a few inflammatory statements querying the validity of the project.

Personally, I would argue we need to use this review to make the case for HS2 better than ever before. Of course, any plan of this scale needs to deliver value for money, but to question the essence of the programme is absurd; can you think of a more coherent scheme which will connect all parts of the country, rebalance the economy and underpin local economic plans which will help unlock prosperity in towns and cities across the UK that have been ignored for years?

Take for example the West Midlands Combined Authority’s transport blueprint which will see billions spent on tram extensions, new rail lines, motorway improvements and new cycle routes over the next decade - all of this is centred on the arrival of HS2. If the project doesn’t go ahead, where will we get the money to press on with all of these essential improvements? What is Plan B?

Put simply, to risk cancelling the project when so much regional investment is predicated on its arrival would be a dereliction of duty from a Government which claims it will prioritise the regions and shift away from a reliance on London to deliver economic growth.

I’m glad the panellists are travelling across the country in order to gather evidence to conduct their evaluation. It will give them a chance to hear voices from outside of the Westminster bubble on just how much is resting on the arrival of HS2 and how it could genuinely transform the landscape of the country for the rest of the 21st century.

Let’s hope this argument will sound all too familiar by the end of the process – clearly, the future prosperity and unity of our country rests upon it.

If it doesn’t go ahead, where will we get the money for essential improvements?