Rail minister blasts ‘arrogant' HS2 over crisis-hit flagship project
A transport minister has branded the company responsible for delivering the troubled high-speed rail scheme 'arrogant'.
In withering criticism, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill said the flagship HS2 project had gone 'badly wrong', pointing out the Government could not say when it would open or how much it would cost, which was a 'terrible position'.
With new leadership in place, he pointedly remarked there would now be bosses 'who are communicative, collaborative, straight and honest'.
Lord Hendy also noted his own Department for Transport (DfT), which owns HS2 Ltd, bore 'some culpability' and noted the most senior civil servant at the ministry had retired.
His scathing remarks came after Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said an interim report by Mark Wild, the chief executive of HS2 Ltd, who was appointed late last year, 'lays bare the shocking mismanagement of the project under previous governments'.
The Cabinet minister said she was 'drawing a line in the sand, calling time on years of mismanagement, flawed reporting and ineffective oversight'.
HS2 was originally due to run between London and Birmingham, then on to Manchester and Leeds, but the project was cutback by the Conservatives in power because of spiralling costs.
The first phase was initially planned to open by the end of 2026, but this was pushed back to between 2029 and 2033 and will now be delayed even further.
In 2013, HS2 was estimated to cost £37.5 billion (at 2009 prices) for the entire planned network, including the now-scrapped extensions from Birmingham.
In June last year, HS2 Ltd assessed the cost for the line between London and Birmingham would be up to £66 billion.
Ms Alexander said the Government has accepted all the recommendations of a review into the governance and accountability of HS2 Ltd, led by senior infrastructure delivery adviser, James Stewart.
She also confirmed the appointment of Mike Brown as chairman of HS2 Ltd.
Mr Brown is a former commissioner for Transport for London, who helped to oversee the delivery of Crossrail, the transport project which became London's Elizabeth line.
Speaking in Parliament on the 'reset' of the high-speed rail development, Lord Hendy said: 'HS2 has gone badly wrong, and it falls to this Government to sort it out, because we cannot carry on like this.
'Currently, we can predict neither when it will open nor how much it will cost. That is a pretty terrible position to be in and it has to be said the consequences are as a result of actions taken by previous governments.'
Responding to a question from his Tory counterpart Lord Moylan on criticism of the DfT in Mr Stewart's review, the minister said: 'My own department clearly shoulders some culpability.
'He asked what has happened in the department and, although I do not think it is not right to delve into senior personnel, he will, of course, note that a new permanent secretary is about to be appointed, the previous incumbent having retired.'
Lord Hendy went on: ' One of the really important things in this is that, I think for the first time for a long time, we will have a chair and a chief executive of HS2 who are communicative, collaborative, straight and honest, and we can have a discussion with them about where this is going and what it is doing.
'One of the characteristics of this company so far, and of the Crossrail company for most of its life, is that they were both arrogant enough to believe that they knew what they were doing without any supervision and without telling anybody what was really going on.
'In both cases, it went badly wrong.
'Mark (Wild) knows that he has to change the culture of the company. There clearly are some good people there, but they need to be led and directed properly.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
19 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
300 jobs at risk as firm moves Scottish Power contract to South Africa
The outsourcing firm Capita confirmed that all its staff working on their contract with Scottish Power in the UK have been placed at risk of redundancy, STV News has reported. Around 303 roles are at risk, with workers in home move, prepayment, and smart metering services, and domestic customer services among those affected. Scottish Power has its headquarters in Glasgow, with centres across Scotland and in England. The London-based firm has provided customer support for Scottish Power since signing a five-year deal in 2022 worth a reported £63 million. Five work packages will still be delivered over the next three years, but operations will transition to South Africa, a memo seen by STV News reportedly said. Meanwhile, work on two packages still to be delivered will also be transitioned to South Africa, but through another outsourcing firm. It has been reported that some staff will be let go in October, while others may be made redundant in February next year. The announcement was made to staff on Wednesday, along with at-risk letters issued on the same day. A minimum 45-day collective consultation period will begin on Thursday. Capita previously provided customer support services for Scottish Power between 2005 and 2016. A Capita spokesperson said: 'Changes to our delivery model unfortunately mean that all colleagues working on our Scottish Power contract in the UK have been placed at risk of redundancy. 'Our priority is to support impacted colleagues through this change, and includes looking at redeployment opportunities where possible.' Scottish Power has been approached for comment.
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Tube drivers threatening to strike if 'bosses refuse to pay them £76,000 a year'
London Underground drivers are threatening to go on strike if 'bosses refuse to pay them £76,000 a year'. The RMT trade union is allegedly urging members to take action if Transport for London (TfL) does not offer them a pay rise of 4.5 per cent. If accepted, salaries for drivers would raise to £76,127, more than twice the average annual salary. Currently, most tube drivers make around £72,000 a year, which is already close to double the average salary of £37,500, according to the Office for National Statistics. TfL has reportedly offered Tube drivers a 2.8 per cent pay rise. In a letter seen by The Telegraph, the union has called for a pay rise that 'protects members from the real cost of living '. Keith Prince, the London Assembly transport spokesman said: 'It's never enough - Khan and the Labour government bunged billions at union barons without any strings attached, and for nothing. 'Now drivers are looking for a salary more than double what the average Brit earns.' Last year Sir Sadiq Khan warded off the threat of strikes by promising train drivers a four-day working week and a 4.6 per cent pay rise. Workers would do a regular 34-hour week across four days, including a 30-minute paid break, instead of 38.5 hours. Drivers would only work a fifth day of the week once every three months, to account for some of the time being trimmed. However, this work would be training rather than operating trains. The ASLEF union accepted the new terms in a vote, but the RMT union is still yet to agree. Aslef announced in April that 70 per cent of members had voted to endorse the new terms in a ballot, with 80 per cent turnout. Finn Brennan, Aslef's full-time organiser on London Underground, said: 'Despite a campaign of disinformation and distortion by those who want to prevent drivers having improved working conditions and a better work-life balance, our members have voted in favour of the proposal by 70 per cent on an 80 per cent turnout in an independently audited referendum. 'As a majority of members have voted in favour of the proposal, we will now be writing to the company to inform them of the result and to arrange a meeting to start detailed discussions on implementation.' Currently drivers take unpaid breaks within their hours, and 'bank' one hour a week that is given back as time in lieu later. Supporters of the new arrangement say it is hard for TfL to dictate how long unpaid breaks should last. A TfL spokesperson said: 'We look forward to reaching a fair and affordable agreement for our colleagues.' The RMT union has been contacted for comment.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - Uncle Sam's stablecoin passion has shaky rationale
LONDON, June 19 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Uncle Sam is going all-in on stablecoins. President Donald Trump backed, opens new tab the privately issued cryptocurrencies whose value is pegged to the U.S. dollar within days of his inauguration in January. Now Congress is poised to legislate, after the Senate this week approved the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins – or GENIUS - Act. The newly supportive regulatory environment has drawn a flood of interest from potential issuers, from major banks, opens new tab to retailers, opens new tab such as Walmart (WMT.N), opens new tab and (AMZN.O), opens new tab, according to media reports. Meanwhile stablecoin specialist Circle Internet, opens new tab(CRCL.N), opens new tab, which listed on the New York Stock Exchange this month, has a digital dollar surrogate, USDC, which already has coins worth over $60 billion in circulation, opens new tab. Commercial interest is nothing new. Tech-savvy American corporates have long recognised stablecoins as the one species of digital money with a compelling mainstream use. The first generation of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin offered not just a way of digitally storing and transferring value, but the ability to denominate it in their own standard units. That model caught on with speculative traders but never made much headway in the world of digital payments. Stablecoins, by contrast, combine the novelty of global, real-time availability and programmability with the familiarity of national currency units. That makes them uninteresting as speculative bets – but well suited as methods for payment. A simple comparison shows how the two models serve different purposes. Bitcoin – the original and by far the largest own-standard cryptocurrency – has tokens in circulation worth $2.1 trillion. That's nearly 10 times the value of the two biggest stablecoins, USDT and USDC, combined. Yet when it comes to transactions, the leaderboard is reversed. Less than 3% of those bitcoins change hands in a 24-hour period, compared to nearly 40% of the two stablecoins. The payments business is a big target for disruption. Visa (V.N), opens new tab and Mastercard (MA.N), opens new tab – the two largest processors of fiat currency payments – reported combined revenue of $74 billion last year and enjoy net profit margins of around 50%. That's quite a market at which to take aim. Moreover, stablecoin issuers collect interest on the collateral backing their digital coins as well as harvesting transaction processing fees. That's how Circle made a cool $1.7 billion in revenue last year. It's not hard to see why potential stablecoin issuers have been lining up for years. Nevertheless early projects flopped, notably Facebook owner Meta Platforms' (META.O), opens new tab ill-fated 2017 Libra stablecoin, opens new tab. That's because regulators and central bankers have not been nearly so keen. Three potential gremlins have been uppermost in their minds. The first is what would happen if stablecoins are not backed by sufficient high-quality, liquid collateral to make them redeemable at par on demand. A plague of pseudo-U.S. dollars would then circulate at varying discounts to the real greenback. That would undermine the so-called 'singleness of money, opens new tab' and destroy the co-ordinating role of the U.S. dollar as a unit of account. The regulators' second bugbear is the black economy. They fret that because stablecoins are effectively 'bearer securities', like physical banknotes, they are subject to know-your-customer and anti-money laundering rules only when their users seek to convert them into traditional bank deposits. In the meantime, they can be used to make payments anonymously just like physical cash. Finally, there is the risk that stablecoins erode the effectiveness of monetary policy. Physical greenbacks may be hard to track, but they are still issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve. A stablecoin issued by Amazon or Walmart might settle a macroeconomically significant volume of transactions between its customers and suppliers without ever formally touching the dollar. That could scramble the Fed's attempts to manage inflation by constraining liquidity. Yet none of these objections are new. Prudential risks are already a concern for money market funds and traditional banks. The anonymity of transactions is a feature of physical banknotes. The dilution of monetary policy is a familiar gripe of central bankers in emerging markets, where foreign currencies such as the dollar or euro often circulate alongside the national unit. What spooks regulators in the developed world is less the novelty of the risks than the frightening scale, scope, and speed which digitisation allows. That implies work-arounds can probably be found, especially if a unified clearing and settlement protocol connecting stablecoins to the traditional financial system, such as the ubyx, opens new tab concept announced this week, are adopted. Until this year, the caution of the regulators trumped the commercial interests of potential stablecoin issuers. What has helped to unblock the GENIUS Act is that the U.S. government believes it has spotted a fiscal benefit. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent set out, opens new tab his reasoning immediately after the Senate approved the act. 'A thriving stablecoin ecosystem will drive demand from the private sector for U.S. Treasuries, which back stablecoins,' he wrote: 'This newfound demand could lower government borrowing costs and help rein in the national debt.' What's more, he argued, stablecoins could 'onramp millions of new users – across the globe – to the dollar-based digital asset economy', effectively opening up a new frontier of overseas funding for the U.S. budget deficit. Bessent cited projections that the stablecoin market could top $3.7 trillion by 2030. That's certainly not small change. It would be more than sufficient to soak up the $3 trillion that nonpartisan experts reckon, opens new tab Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act will add to the national debt over the next 10 years. Unfortunately, things are not so simple. The Treasury already effectively enjoys free foreign financing via overseas demand for U.S. dollar banknotes. The Fed estimates, opens new tab that over $1 trillion of them currently circulate abroad. If dollar-backed stablecoins simply replace demand for physical notes, there will be no net fiscal benefit. Another niggle is that while purchases of stablecoins may help finance the national debt, the tokens could facilitate more payments that fly under the radar of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In 2022, the IRS estimated, opens new tab that nearly 12% of U.S. taxes go missing due to underreporting, implying a shortfall of around $600 billion in the most recent fiscal year. A surge in stablecoin usage could easily make that worse. Given the compelling commercial case and the likelihood that regulatory risks can be managed, it is ironic that the potential fiscal dividend that has finally convinced the U.S. government to bank on stablecoins is the shakiest rationale for embracing them. Follow @felixmwmartin, opens new tab on X
