HS2 review deputy disowns report amid cost fears

How the new HS2 station at Euston is expected to look

Lord Berkeley, the deputy of an independent review into HS2 has disowned a leaked report by chairman Douglas Oakervee and suggested he will produce his own conflicting version.

In an open letter, which he has now published on Twitter, the Labour peer warned that the cost of HS2 was likely to be even higher than its revised £88bn budget.

• HS2 contracts may be retendered due to ‘inflated prices’
• HS2 faces delay of up to five years as budget hits £88bn

Having read a draft version of the report, he said: “I cannot support its conclusions or recommendations, and have serious problems with its lack of balance.”

My HS2 letter to Doug Oakervee on the Review panel. pic.twitter.com/7xR9GDYFhA

— tony berkeley (@tonyberkeley1) November 13, 2019

Lord Berkeley claimed that even as far back as autumn 2016, HS2 higher management accepted that a figure of £84-86bn was more realistic than the original £57bn budget for the project.

He added: “I believe the review should accept that a capital cost of £103bn as suggested in Michael Byng’s independent analysis is the most likely outturn cost.”

He also complained that the review had to be completed in a “very short time” and that he was not invited to meetings with ministers, officials and HS2.

“I detected a trend in many of the discussions within the review to accept that HS2 will go ahead, so that every effort should be made to minimise costs and maximise revenue, rather than look at the pros and cons of alternative options with a view to reducing costs but still giving as many benefits to those who need them most – in the regions,” the letter continued.

He concluded: “Please therefore take this letter as formal notice that I do not support the review report. I reserve the right to publish my own alternative report in due course.”

Detail’s of Oakervee’s leaked report emerged at the start of this week. The Times reported that Oakervee had concluded the full project should go ahead despite “inflated prices” and criticism of an “unsuccessful” procurement strategy.