The comments made by Heidi Alexander, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 27 May 2026.
We are a government firmly on the side of drivers, and that means acting when hardworking people are being left out of pocket.
The people who use their own vehicle for work are the backbone of our country – the carers, the tradespeople and the public sector workers who keep services running. For too long, they have been expected to shoulder rising costs with support that simply has not kept up.
We’re doing all we can to ease everyday pressures on working people – that means real money back in their pockets and delivering for the people who keep Britain moving.
The Government and rail industry have launched a new campaign to tackle sexual harassment on trains and at stations. The campaign, part of the wider Enough initiative, will encourage passengers to report abuse to the British Transport Police and challenge behaviours including staring, intrusive questions and unwelcome comments.
The Department for Transport and British Transport Police are also launching a national Safer Railway Scheme, under which train operators will be assessed on how they prevent harassment, support victims and train staff. Operators will need to meet clear safety standards to receive accreditation.
Safeguarding minister Natalie Fleet said too many women experience fear and harassment during ordinary journeys. Ministers said the work forms part of the Government’s wider Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, which aims to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.
The statement made by Heidi Alexander, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 19 May 2026.
Overview
Today, alongside my oral statement in the House, I am publishing this government’s latest report to Parliament on High Speed Two (HS2).
Over the past year, Mark Wild and HS2 Ltd have worked closely with my department and other partners in government to assess the remaining scope of work, and to estimate thoroughly how long it will take and how much it will cost to complete the project. The government has accepted his advice on the revised cost and schedule for completing HS2, and I am now sharing these figures publicly.
The expected cost of delivering HS2 is now in the range of £ 87.7 – 102.7 billion. This is expressed in a mixed price base, including the cash outturn of works to date and the costs of future work excluding inflation. This represents £ 70.9 – 82.2 billion in an equivalent 2019 mixed price base – a stark increase on the previous cost range of £35 – 45 billion (2019 prices) set under the previous government.
These ranges cover the cost of the whole programme, stretching from London Euston to Birmingham Curzon Street and to the connection to the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre Junction, which will enable HS2 services to continue to the Northwest and Scotland. This includes the indicative expected cost of delivering HS2 to Euston, some of which we intend to fund through private finance and other sources.
Regarding schedule, the delivery of HS2’s opening stage is now expected between May 2036 and October 2039. This will see the first trains running between Old Oak Common in west London and Birmingham Curzon Street. We estimate that the full scheme, including both Euston to the south and Handsacre Junction to the north, will open between May 2040 and December 2043.
Two thirds of this expected cost increase are a combination of necessary works that were missed from the scope of the original project plan, under-estimation and inefficient delivery. These are issues that were within the control of HS2 Ltd, some of its suppliers, and previous governments, and these lessons are being applied following the James Stewart Review.
A third of the cost increase is linked to inflation, which has significantly impacted the British economy over the past five years. The cost estimate for the programme was updated in the past to account for inflation, but not regularly enough. To reflect inflation more accurately in the future, including any impacts arising from the current conflict in the Middle East, we will update the price base every two years in line with future Spending Reviews.
As I set out in my interim Parliamentary Report in March, I asked HS2 Ltd CEO Mark Wild to present the government with options to reduce the complexity and over-specification of HS2 in order to bring down costs and delivery timelines. HS2 Ltd, in collaboration with my department, has reported on the initial outcomes of this work, and following robust assurance and consideration at a Ministerial Task Force, I have accepted the recommendation to bring HS2 into line with proven leading European high-speed operating standards, including operating HS2 at up to 320 kilometres per hour (kph), as it supports our endeavour to bring HS2 into operation safely at the lowest reasonable cost.
HS2’s initial work on speed specification suggests that by aligning with other top railways in Europe we could potentially save between £1 billion and £2.5 billion over the life of the delivery programme, by reducing testing and commissioning time, opening earlier and with reduced costs compared to existing plans. The main savings come from avoiding the risks associated with certifying a railway at a speed not operated anywhere in the world.
This is an initial assessment that will mature further as the work is refined into a full programme baseline, but HS2 Ltd, and my department, are confident this will make it more likely that HS2 is delivered at the lowest reasonable cost. This change provides an opportunity to reduce the risks involved in delivering HS2 by aligning the speed and systems used with tried-and-tested operations in the UK and Europe – simplifying the remaining work to be delivered. The reduction in top speed will be modest and brings HS2 in line with the fastest high-speed services already operating in Europe, relying on proven technology and systems. Initial assessments indicate that journey times from London to Birmingham will increase by 3 minutes, and will still be 30 minutes faster than the current service, whilst delivering the capacity we need and supporting future economic growth along the line, and around the stations.
Mark Wild has set his organisation the challenging ambition of delivering the programme at a cost of £ 93.2 billion and an initial opening date of late 2037 for trains running between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street. This ambition deliberately sits within the lower half of the ranges to drive better and more efficient delivery. We support it, which gives him a clear mandate to drive down costs and improve productivity.
As the reset progresses and a full delivery baseline is developed, I recognise that additional information might result in HS2 Ltd reporting above this ambition in the future. If that is the case, the ambition will remain useful to incentivise better productivity within the ranges I have published today.
Past estimates of both cost and schedule have proven clearly inaccurate. Given the need to rebuild public trust, it was essential that we learn lessons from past failures and take the time to develop a robust set of figures, as recommended by James Stewart in his review commissioned by this government. The new estimates and their methodologies have been thoroughly assessed and scrutinised, including by a panel of experts who have successfully delivered railways internationally and domestically, like the Elizabeth Line. An Accounting Officer Assessment was produced alongside the new ranges.
However, these estimates do not disguise the fact that HS2 Ltd has already spent close to the original budget. The reset work also makes clear that progress on finishing the civil engineering for the entire line of route is at least four years behind the original schedule, and that the time required to test and commission HS2 to ensure a reliable and safe service was underestimated by another three years. The number of years left to complete the programme is roughly the same as when construction started in 2020, and it is likely we will need to spend the same amount as has already been spent to date.
It is now imperative that we proceed with the final stages of the HS2 reset so that the programme is brought under control and delivered sensibly going forward.
Despite the significant challenges, the programme is at peak delivery, with 31,000 people and thousands of UK businesses working hard to deliver HS2. Delivery progress continues to be made, with the contract for HS2’s rolling stock depot at Washwood Heath, in Birmingham, awarded to a joint venture of Taylor Woodrow Infrastructure Ltd and Aureos Rail Ltd. We are starting to see results from reset: HS2 is now being built faster and more efficiently, with six major construction milestones reached earlier than planned last financial year, and with early signs looking positive for this year’s milestones. Work will continue over the coming year, with the final stages of the reset expected to conclude in the first half of 2027. Under new leadership, HS2 Ltd is putting construction back in logical order, strengthening commercial controls, restructuring the organisation, and rebuilding the partnership with government.
When faced with such a difficult inheritance, I could have chosen to cancel the project and remediate the construction undertaken so far. The costs of doing so are considerable and could cost as much as completing HS2, and would result in no lasting benefit, abandoning ambitions for better national transport across our railway network and potentially leaving communities across our country blighted by unused infrastructure – something I am simply not prepared to do. Communities affected by HS2 do not want to live near half-finished structures that serve no useful purpose without a railway. The economic growth that HS2 is already driving in the West Midlands, and at Old Oak Common, through new housing development, job creation and local regeneration, would be significantly impacted. Instead, this government is committed to doing the responsible thing: facing the challenge head-on so that we can leave the country’s infrastructure in a better condition than when we started.
Increasing the capacity and performance of the current network will drive economic growth. The southern section of the West Coast Main Line is congested and this limits the number of trains that can reliably run, and the number of passengers who can travel. Despite large urban centres, labour productivity in the West Midlands and the North West lags behind the national average. Faster trains will transform this, and extend these benefits to North Wales and Scotland too. This government has been clear on its mission to transform infrastructure across the country, and we are pursuing reforms that will improve our ability to deliver projects. Completing the project remains vital for economic growth and the capacity of our rail network.
The same will be true of our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR), which will deliver a turn up and go railway across the city regions of the Northern Growth Corridor – better connecting Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, and York, with faster and more regular services to Newcastle, Chester and Hull. Development work is underway and we will maintain our focus on applying the lessons from the successful delivery of the Transpennine upgrade, and from HS2, ensuring that we improve our delivery of major rail projects across the country. We also announced our long-term intent for a full new rail line connecting Birmingham and Manchester, which informed our decision on NPR. This will not be a revival of HS2 and no decisions have been taken on the specification or timetable for delivery. In the meantime, we will retain land the government has already purchased between the West Midlands and Crewe.
These new estimates, alongside cost and schedule ambitions to incentivise better delivery, provide a robust foundation for completing the final stages of the reset. Looking ahead, our focus will remain on delivering the railway safely, as soon as possible, and at the lowest reasonable cost.
Wider reset
A key focus of the HS2 reset work has been to put the building blocks of the programme back in the right order. HS2 Ltd has assessed what it will take to finish the civils works on the line of route and stations, to deliver the rail systems, and to deploy the rolling stock, test the railway and drive reliability before starting passenger services.
Over the coming year, HS2 Ltd will be developing a new Baseline for the programme to provide a clear scope of work and path to delivery. It will also form the basis for performance monitoring and reporting by the department to ensure that the project is robustly managed once the reset is complete. I have instructed my officials to update the programme’s business case to ensure that we reflect the changes in HS2’s delivery.
In the meantime, with better contract management, clearer accountability and stronger project controls, the reset is enabling us to put taxpayers’ money to better use and deliver more construction in year for less expenditure than previously. In the 2025/26 financial year, HS2 Ltd delivered over 10% more progress on construction than planned with the same amount of money.
Taking earthworks as an example, over 2025/26, HS2 Ltd moved 25.0 million cubic metres compared to a plan of 20.8 million, an improvement of 20%. Construction costs are tracking below forecast and delivery performance improved over the past year, with six major milestones on tunnels and roads completed ahead of in-year schedule. These included the sliding of a road bridge for the A46 over the HS2 route in April 2025, the installation of precast beams and overbridges over Station Road near Calvert in August 2025, and the second breakthrough on the Bromford tunnel in Birmingham in October 2025. The north portal structure at the Chiltern tunnel was completed in 12 months, several months faster than the south portal, thanks to lessons learned and innovative construction methods. The excavation of the 8.4-mile Northolt tunnel, the second longest on HS2, was completed on schedule in June 2025 despite complex ground conditions.
These improvements have been supported by HS2 Ltd introducing an improved programme control framework. Teams are using new tools and mechanisms, allowing them to better track planned works against actual progress and delivery on the ground, and enabling better problem identification and reporting of progress. Weekly performance reviews enable construction teams to identify problems quickly and resolve issues before they escalate, creating a more responsive and accountable approach. This has taken place while key health and safety indicators have also improved.
HS2 Ltd’s new management team inherited a challenging commercial position. Prior to the reset, commercial capabilities and the management of HS2’s construction contracts were not effective. HS2 Ltd’s ability to settle commercial matters progressively and contemporaneously had deteriorated and become insufficient over recent years. Consequently, large backlogs had been allowed to develop in relation to cost verification, cost finalisation and contract change.
HS2 Ltd has since concentrated on strengthening its commercial controls. New commercial roles have been created to focus on cost verification and contract management, to scrutinise every payment application, to challenge contractor claims, and to manage contracts in taxpayers’ interests. These improvements must be fully embedded in the company, and endure beyond completion of the reset, to the conclusion of the programme.
HS2 Ltd is also engaging with its key supply chain partners to review contracts, close out historic payments only where appropriate and justified, and seek opportunities to incentivise improved performance. This work will be critical to stabilising costs and enabling us to make the spend on HS2 as efficient as possible. I will update on progress in my next report.
HS2 Ltd was set up to deliver a multiphase programme and grew accordingly; this multiphase programme no longer exists. Consequently, HS2 Ltd is being transformed into a lean and accountable delivery body focused on safe delivery between London and the West Midlands at the lowest reasonable cost. Given the overlap of alignment with elements of HS2’s former Phase 2, HS2 Ltd was already developing infrastructure for Northern Powerhouse Rail between Liverpool and Manchester. To make best use of taxpayers’ money and avoid additional costs through alternative arrangements, this work will continue and is being brigaded into a separate business unit, pending longer-term decisions about delivery responsibility for this scheme. The high-level plan we recently announced for Northern Powerhouse Rail remains unaffected by the new cost and schedule ranges for HS2.
HS2 Ltd did not have the right skills, structure or culture to deliver a programme of this scale successfully. Major steps are being taken to restructure the organisation to control and deliver HS2 more effectively, including:
reshaping the corporate centre, reducing headcount by cutting 300 corporate roles and rebalancing the organisation to better support delivery teams
redirecting resources to boost frontline delivery capacity by 40%, with 168 additional roles focused on cost management, oversight and decision-making
bringing in skilled and experienced professionals across commercial, technical, assurance, controls, and finance functions to fill critical capability gaps
As a result, there has also been significant restructuring of the leadership team at HS2 Ltd. This includes appointing a new Director of Business Delivery to reshape the organisation and a Chief Commercial Officer to provide additional commercial leadership, a gap identified in James Stewart’s review. Looking ahead, the department is also working closely with DfT Operator and Network Rail to strengthen the voice of the future operator into the delivery programme and deliver HS2 as part of an integrated railway.
The reset has begun bearing fruit, and I expect continued progress through the financial year as work progresses on completing the delivery baseline, implementing the new commercial strategy and reshaping HS2 Ltd.
The government accepted all 89 of James Stewart’s recommendations in June last year, and since then good progress has been made in implementing them, with both the department and HS2 Ltd on track to implement the remaining recommendations by the end of the programme reset, recognising that delivering the principles of the review will be an enduring endeavour for the lifetime of the programme. I am pleased that James has agreed to join the HS2 Shareholder Board to help ensure that the principles of his review are delivered in full.
The review found that multiple layers of assurance cause duplication and delays, driven by a lack of trust. The department has worked with HS2 Ltd and government partners to implement streamlined governance. This includes using the new Mega Projects Decision Panel to replace existing approval processes and oversee the HS2 reset process, alongside the Ministerial Task Force that this government reinstated. To support effective decision-making, the department has also implemented an integrated approach to assurance, bringing cross-government partners and external experts together to scrutinise the reset and utilising experts to assure the approach. Improvements to culture and trust are being put in place across the two organisations.
The review also highlighted weaknesses in HS2 Ltd’s corporate governance. The appointment of Mike Brown as Chair of HS2 Ltd and his subsequent strengthening of the Board are significant steps in addressing this. The HS2 Ltd Board’s roles and responsibilities have been clarified, with strengthened arrangements for compliance and organisational capability; enhancing delivery expertise within the Board and the company; and ensuring robust oversight through the Board’s sub-committees.
Learning is being embedded across current and future projects through:
independent assurance reviews of major projects, including Euston, Heathrow, Northern Powerhouse Rail, East West Rail, and the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine
resetting the department’s programme of work to improve project delivery
dissemination of learning across the department, its arm’s-length bodies, and wider government
monitoring progress on wider government recommendations in partnership with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority
Following the publication of the review in June 2025, the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to consider the Civil Service and the wider public sector’s stewardship of the HS2 programme, and whether further investigation was warranted. The Cabinet Secretary commissioned Sir Stephen Lovegrove, former National Security Adviser, to undertake a review focusing on accountability, governance and capability. The review has been published today; the government will respond to its recommendations after thorough consideration of the findings.
Oversight
We have continued to strengthen oversight structures to drive performance and accountability. We established a new Shareholder Board, chaired by the Permanent Secretary and with independent membership, to provide more effective oversight. This Board has met six times over the last year. A monthly Programme Performance Board has been established to ensure and oversee the effective delivery of HS2 against agreed schedule, cost and scope.
Alongside regular bilateral meetings between government ministers, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I have attended all meetings of the Ministerial Task Force to deliver effective oversight. Since my report in July 2025, it has met four times to review progress on both delivery and the reset; to agree HS2 Ltd’s commercial strategy; to agree the updated schedule and cost ranges for the delivery of HS2; and to consider the early findings of the work on HS2 speed specification.
On his appointment, I tasked Mike Brown with reviewing the capacity and capability of the HS2 Ltd Board and its effectiveness. On his recommendation, I have appointed six new Non-Executive Directors which will bolster senior leadership capability in infrastructure delivery, health and safety, business transformation and commercial relationships.
While better governance alone is not enough to bring performance back on track, effective oversight, clear accountability and purpose-driven structures will be essential in improving management of the programme’s delivery.
Expenditure
To the end of March 2026, £44.2 billion (nominal prices) had been spent on the HS2 programme. This is provided in more detail in the financial annex, based on data provided by HS2 Ltd.
Spend to date information covers the period up to the end of March 2026. Unless stated otherwise, all figures are presented in nominal prices.
At the 2025 Spending Review, the government allocated a £25.3 billion capital settlement for HS2 Ltd from Financial Years 2026/27 to 2029/30 in order to progress delivery of HS2 from the West Midlands to London Euston. The HS2 programme reset work is underpinned by this settlement, and the annual funding allocations remain unchanged.
Euston
We have made significant progress in developing affordable, integrated plans for the Euston Campus, with all partners confirming their support for an overall spatial plan. The HS2 station will include 6 platforms, supporting all foreseeable Phase 1 services. Space will also be provided for additional platforms should they be required to support a future expansion of the network. In addition, the redevelopment of the existing Euston Station will deliver a new station concourse that will accommodate current and future passenger demand on the West Coast Main Line, while replacing life-expired station assets in a cost-effective manner.
We are working at pace with our Master Development Partner, Lendlease, on a Masterplan for Euston, with an emphasis on economic growth and delivering much needed housing, and will set out a plan in due course. We are also exploring models for development across the wider Euston area with local partners.
In April 2026, the Euston Delivery Company assumed the leadership role for the Euston campus and became the single directing mind for the Euston programme, delivering a cross-campus approach to the next stage of design work. Initially, the Euston Delivery Company will sit as a business unit within the department as we build its capability. We expect the company to be stood up as a public body in the Autumn.
With our significant public commitment to funding HS2 into Euston, we believe that the additional investment required to build the new HS2 station at Euston is an exciting opportunity for private investors. As referenced in the government’s 10-Year Infrastructure Strategy, the department is exploring the use of a public-private partnership to design, build, finance and maintain this HS2 station. We are continuing to advance this work, in close collaboration with HM Treasury and the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority.
In February 2026, the department launched the first stage of preliminary market engagement which sought to raise industry awareness of the project and the department’s emerging plans, assess potential market appetite and identify priority issues for the market at an early stage, to support refinement of the proposed commercial and procurement approach. Confirmation of using a public-private partnership model will be subject to achieving appropriate risk transfer and delivering value for money for taxpayers. We will also continue to explore the most effective ways to capture the value created by development unlocked through transport infrastructure and recycle it to repay public investment, including through a tax increment financing-style mechanism at Euston.
The updated cost range for HS2 published today includes an early estimate of the cost of delivering the HS2 and London Underground elements of the Euston programme, some of which we intend to fund through private finance and other sources. While at an earlier stage of maturity than the wider HS2 reset, these costs will be reviewed and refined as work progresses, and further updates will be provided as part of regular parliamentary reporting. An updated budget for Euston will be subject to further development of design and schedule. The redevelopment of the existing Euston Station concourse area is subject to separate funding via the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline.
Progress has been made on ‘meanwhile uses’ to reduce the impact on the local community. In July 2025, the new Euston Community Hub opened in the former Maria Fidelis school and has since had over 7,000 visitors. The Hub, located at the heart of Euston, provides a dynamic space for community sector organisations and public service providers to carry out various programmes and community-led activities, initiatives and engagement. It will also serve as a central information point for residents and passengers, providing regular updates and engagement opportunities about plans to redevelop Euston. September 2025 also saw the opening of the Construction Skills Yard, where local people can gain experience of being on site, get trained on machinery in a realistic environment, and use the site facilities. The new training hub, which expands the existing Euston Skills Centre is being used to deliver skills courses and create more opportunities for residents to access local jobs in the construction industry, and on the Euston station works.
Benefits
Economic growth and housing
HS2 will provide people with more choice about where to work, and where to study. Economic growth will also be driven by increased leisure travel, as it becomes quicker and easier for people to visit friends or explore different parts of the UK.
By bringing businesses closer together, HS2 will make it easier to share knowledge and enable them to access more workers in different locations. As a result, HS2 will attract new businesses to local areas, in turn driving increased investment and economic activity.
The economic benefits of HS2 are already being seen with the programme’s four new stations acting as catalysts for significant local growth and regeneration. HS2 estimate this will support the generation of over 63,000 new homes, 49,000 new jobs and an economic uplift of £20 billion in the West Midlands and west London over the next 10 years. HS2 is supporting the early development we are already seeing in Birmingham and the West Midlands, helping to catalyse investment in exciting new areas such as the Sports Quarter.
HS2 will also have a significant impact around Euston station. Euston is one of the largest development opportunities in central London and its potential is enhanced by the connectivity HS2 will provide. Recent estimates from the London Borough of Camden suggest that by 2053 a mix of new homes and commercial development could deliver an economic uplift of around £41 billion and support the creation of 34,000 new jobs.
Alongside the reset, HS2 Ltd is exploring opportunities for early release of land at key locations: Old Oak Common, Interchange, Curzon Street and Washwood Heath, enabling some land holdings to be brought into use while the railway is being built. This work aims to unlock potential for new homes, retail and commercial development.
This approach means we can deliver regeneration benefits as early as possible, creating lasting economic value alongside railway construction rather than waiting until completion of the railway. Each site represents a significant opportunity to boost local economies and support this government’s growth agenda. We are working closely with local authorities, communities, stakeholders, developers and investors throughout this process to help realise these opportunities.
HS2’s economic benefits will extend beyond the new stations, as HS2 services will extend and provide better journeys to the Northwest and Scotland, with faster journeys also possible through onward connections to areas including North Wales. The delivery of this new railway will also release capacity to meet increasing demand for regional, local and freight services between London and the West Midlands, further supporting growth in the local communities along that route.
Skills and innovation
People are at the heart of HS2 and its benefits, as the programme continues to support around 31,000 jobs.
I am proud of the impact HS2 is already having on the lives of people being brought into the workforce. So far, 5,771 previously unemployed people have been brought into work since Phase 1 Royal Assent.
We are also making great progress on supporting apprentices and have achieved a significant milestone this year with 2,136 apprenticeships created since 2017, breaking the 2,000 target that had been set for the programme. These apprenticeships will have a lasting impact on the individuals who have completed their programmes and help to develop a skilled and modern workforce, leaving a lasting skills legacy for the construction industry.
Innovation also remains central to HS2’s delivery. As part of the programme reset, HS2 Ltd is working with some of the UK’s leading tech specialists – bringing in expertise from beyond the rail sector – to tackle key challenges, including improving value for money, boosting site productivity, and enhancing safety management. Through its partnership with Connected Places Catapult, the HS2 Innovation Accelerator has supported start-ups and tech innovators since 2020, delivering cost savings, funding and investment of over £250 million, creating hundreds of new jobs in science and tech and attracting investment into SMEs.
Community impacts, land and property
Community engagement
Due to the delays to delivery, the impacts of construction will be felt by communities along the line of route for longer. HS2 Ltd continues to inform and involve communities who are impacted by construction and the uncertainty caused by the project reset. Between April 2025 and March 2026, over 21,000 residents were engaged at over 3,000 meetings and events. A further 29,406 enquiries were received via the HS2 Ltd Helpdesk, which operates 24 hours a day.
During the same period, HS2 Ltd received 1,405 complaints, the vast majority of which continue to relate to the impacts of construction, including concerns about traffic and transport disruption and noise and vibration impacts. HS2 Ltd is committed to resolving complaints promptly. Of the 1,405 complaints received, HS2 Ltd resolved 100% of urgent complaints within 2 working days and resolved 98% of all other complaints within 20 working days or less.
Local funds
One of the ways in which HS2 currently offers mitigation, benefits and compensation for line-of-route communities affected by construction is through the £40 million Community and Environment Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund. This fund will continue to be available throughout the prolonged construction period. As at April 2026, over £22.3 million has been invested in communities and businesses that have been demonstrably disrupted by the construction of HS2, delivering 405 projects that will leave an enduring legacy.
Land, property and remediation
This government has recognised the need to make faster progress in settling outstanding property compensation claims, which in the past were taking far too long to reach final settlement. HS2 Ltd has now significantly increased the rate at which claims on Phase 1 are being settled, but we have made clear to the company that further improvement is needed.
In January, the government confirmed its intention to retain existing land holdings previously acquired for HS2 between the West Midlands and Crewe, in line with its intention to ultimately deliver a new rail line between Birmingham and Manchester.
HS2 Ltd is speaking to property owners whose land has been acquired in order to progress outstanding claims. HS2 Ltd and the supply chain have begun to engage with landowners of temporarily acquired land alongside local authorities to agree necessary remediation plans. We anticipate the remediation programme will conclude by the end of 2027.
The powers to compulsory purchase land on the former HS2 Phase 2a route expired on 11 February 2026. The government has the option to seek to extend these powers in the future, if required; we will set out our future intentions on land powers, consents and safeguarding in due course.
Along the Phase 1 route, HS2 Ltd has identified a number of surplus properties for potential disposal and has begun to market these. We have already sold a small number of Phase 1 properties as part of a pilot project and anticipate selling an increasing number over the coming years as continued progress in building the railway means we are able to release properties back to the market.
Following the lifting of safeguarding between the West Midlands and Leeds that I announced in my report in July 2025, the department has commenced a programme to sell land and property that is no longer required on the former Phase 2 route, starting with 558 properties on the former Phase 2b Eastern Leg.
A delivery agent has been appointed to lead on delivering the programme and we expect open market sales to begin later in 2026. HS2 Ltd will continue to manage properties on behalf of the department.
The disposal process will comply with the Crichel Down Rules, giving former owners, or their successors, whose properties were acquired under statutory blight or compulsory purchase, an opportunity to reacquire their former property at its current market value.
This programme will be phased over several years and carried out carefully to minimise disruption to local communities, protect local property markets, and ensure value for money for taxpayers.
Wider rail network
One of the lessons we are learning from HS2 is the need to approach the infrastructure needs of the rail network as a unified system, rather than a collection of separate projects. The government’s ultimate intention to deliver a full new rail line between Birmingham and Manchester will help to maximise the national benefits of both HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail and safeguard future growth for the long term, by ensuring that the West Coast Main Line corridor offers sufficient capacity and good connectivity. Further work will be carried out in collaboration with local partners on what will be delivered and when, but we expect the delivery timelines for this line to follow the completion of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail.
As the department prepares to establish Great British Railways (GBR) and continues to bring passenger services back under public ownership, we are considering options for how HS2 services and infrastructure will be integrated. GBR will improve services for passengers and freight users, transition the rail network towards greater financial sustainability, and unlock barriers to the delivery of future schemes. As such, I am clear HS2 needs to be delivered and operated in a way that supports these objectives.
The planned approach to HS2’s operations must align with GBR’s operating model as it develops. The HS2 service will need to align with and complement the wider rail network. Decisions on the operational model for HS2 and its interaction with GBR are being carefully considered. It is likely that transitional states will be required in order to de-risk the process and protect our ability to deliver the HS2 project and services during this period.
Financial annex
Total estimated cost range
HS2 is forecast to cost £87.7 – £102.7 billion. This is expressed in a mixed price base, including the costs of both works to date and future work excluding inflation.
As committed to Parliament in my previous report, the cost ranges provided also express spend after Q3 2019 in 2019 values excluding projected inflation. This approach ensures that costs can be reconciled against figures previously communicated to Parliament and the public.
HS2 programme ranges
£ billion
Low
High
Q3 2025
87.7
102.7
Q3 2019
70.9
82.2
Notes
Q3 2025 ranges
[1] Spend up to September 2025 is expressed in nominal to reflect the cash spent on the programme (£40.9 billion). This approach is consistent with the government’s Parliamentary reporting and HS2 Ltd’s management of costs since Notice to Proceed in 2020, in which spend prior to Q3 2019 was treated in nominal.
[2] The remaining costs-to-go are presented in the prices of the day (Q3 2025) excluding forecast general and construction inflation. When the price base of the programme is reset every two years in line with future Spending Reviews, the lower and upper bound of the ranges will increase commensurately with inflation actually incurred over this period.
[3] The ranges include the full cost of delivering HS2 to Euston, some of which we intend to fund through private finance and other sources such as tax increment financing.
Q3 2019 ranges
[4] Note the Notice to Proceed Funding Envelope was constructed by uprating expenditure between 2015 and Q3 2019 to Q3 2019 prices.
Overall nominal cost
[5] Indicatively, the provisional cash estimate based on the lower and upper bound for the overall cost of the HS2 programme is £94.3 billion – £112.4 billion in cash terms, including projected inflation forecast using HS2 Ltd’s bespoke inflation indices.
Historic and forecast expenditure
The information on HS2’s overall spend to date and budget is now being provided in nominal (cash) terms following a commitment made by the department to the Public Accounts Committee to express the costs of the programme in a more up-to-date price base and better capture the inflation incurred since 2019. The government will provide further details on the 2026 to 2027 position in cash terms as part of the standard Main Estimates report to Parliament.
This is expressed in nominal prices, including land and property.
The speech made by Keir Mather, the Minister for Transport, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this incredibly important debate, and I thank the Members in attendance, in particular the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing the debate. We have engaged on this topic before, and I would welcome any further engagement in the build-up to and following the publication of the draft amended ANPS.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am very grateful for the Minister’s commitment to engagement. Right now, there is traffic chaos in the Egham and Pooley Green area. I am opposed to the third runway. It will make the transport situation in the north of my constituency worse, and it will cause problems of increased noise and air pollution. Will he engage with our local communities, so that he can hear from them how much we do not want it?
Keir Mather
I would be very pleased to engage with the hon. Member and, perhaps through him, with the community groups that he points to. It is important to say that the ANPS review will consider the elements of the existing ANPS that relate to surface access proposals. That includes mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effects of expansion on existing surface access arrangements. I would be happy to speak about that with him and his constituents.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister is making a really important point about the importance of surface access. He will know, because I have pressed him on this before, how important I think it is that we get better rail access to Heathrow, regardless of whether there is a third runway. Heathrow has committed to looking at both a western rail link and, importantly for my constituents in Bracknell, a southern rail link. Would he like to see those plans go ahead? Will he press Heathrow to make sure that they are part of any proposals, and will he do everything he can to deliver better rail access for my constituents?
Keir Mather
As part of the ANPS process, we are going to consider the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets. Any expansion at Heathrow will be tested against the public transport mode share targets set out in the ANPS, and rail will form an important part of those considerations. I would be happy to have further conversations with my hon. Friend about how his constituents may be affected by any expansion and mitigations in that space, although I do not wish to pre-empt any of the outcomes of the ANPS review.
Heathrow expansion and, in turn, a third runway at Heathrow airport would have a transformative impact. It is essential, as hon. Members have outlined, that the Government get this process right, taking full account of all views and ensuring adequate and full scrutiny. The Government recognise that air connectivity plays a vital role in supporting economic growth across the country, with the air transport and aerospace sectors contributing £23 billion to our GDP and 240,000 jobs across the United Kingdom in 2023.
Dr Ben Spencer
Will the Minister give way?
Keir Mather
I will give way briefly, and then I will make some progress.
Dr Spencer
Notwithstanding my points about the third runway, the success of Heathrow is incredibly important to my constituents in providing jobs and economic activity locally. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s response to the concerns about kerosene supply, which impacts Heathrow and our economy?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I hesitate to even raise this, but in case the Minister is anxious about time, we can—fortunately or unfortunately—run to 5.30 pm.
Keir Mather
Fortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker—come on!
The hon. Member is right to say that the economic activity and jobs created by Heathrow airport are dependent on international supply chains, and I know his constituents will be looking with concern at what is happening in the middle east. The Department for Transport is engaging very closely with both our refineries and the aviation sector to ensure we have security of aviation fuel supply. That work is ongoing, and we are confident that, working closely with those stakeholders, we can ensure that the impacts of the crisis in the middle east are sufficiently mitigated. I know how important that will be to his constituents.
Capacity constraints are hindering further growth in our aviation sector. Heathrow airport, as the UK’s busiest airport and only hub airport, plays a critical role in enabling international connectivity for both passengers and freight: 73% of UK long-haul flights go from Heathrow and 72% of UK international air freight by value goes through the airport. The decision about a third runway at Heathrow has been ducked and delayed for decades, which has resulted in the capacity of the UK’s only hub airport being constrained. That has had a material impact on Heathrow, with the airport operating at over 95% capacity for most of the past two decades.
Our ambition, as set out by the Chancellor, is clear: it is to enable delivery of an operational third runway at Heathrow by 2035. Better connections and a third runway have the potential to boost the UK economy and support thousands of jobs. Businesses, and business groups such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and regional chambers across the country, are clear in their support for Heathrow expansion, as are major trade unions. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion proposal needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution.
As hon. Members will be aware, last October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the ANPS, which is the Government’s policy framework for additional runway capacity at Heathrow airport, would be reviewed to reflect changes in legislation, policy and data, and to ensure that any proposed scheme meets the Government’s four tests—on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise—for expansion at Heathrow. The ANPS provides the basis for decision making on granting development consent for a new runway. Any scheme must be delivered in line with the UK’s legal, climate and environmental obligations.
In November, the Government announced that the north-west runway scheme, put forward by Heathrow Airport Ltd, will be used to inform the review of the ANPS. However, once the Government have reviewed the ANPS, and depending on the outcome of the review, any applicant, also known as a promoter, can submit a proposal through the development consent order process.
It is for scheme promoters to decide when to submit any DCO application for a third runway scheme, and any promoter may submit a proposal for development consent. It is at that stage of the planning process when the precise impact of Heathrow would be considered. Any DCO application to build a third runway would go through a strict and independent process. It would be examined by the Planning Inspectorate. The Secretary of State for Transport would then make a final decision on whether to grant consent.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous with his time—although, as Madam Deputy Speaker pointed out, we have quite a lot of it. The UK Government used to have a golden share in Heathrow airport. However, that was ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice in 2003. Given that the Government broadly want the same thing as any promoter might want, inasmuch as they want Heathrow expansion, that would suggest that the Government are at the point of maximum influence in this build-up phase. Post-Brexit, will the Minister consider making any progress with the third runway conditional on the British Government getting back their golden share, so that we can control a great deal more of what goes on at Heathrow at Government level?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. If he does not mind my saying so, I think he may have a slightly over-inflated expectation of my powers as a junior Minister in the Department for Transport to compel a change in Heathrow airport’s ownership structure. What I am pleased to say is that there is broad support for the principle of expansion, irrespective of the fact that the Government have set this as a key priority to generate growth and prosperity in the United Kingdom. I will certainly take his suggestion on board, but I am pleased to say that I think the onus is there to ensure that the project is realised, irrespective of the ownership model that may exist.
To turn back briefly to the DCO process, the Government are working at pace to ensure that the ANPS constitutes a robust framework under which any successful promoter must meet the four tests and the requirements under the Planning Act 2008—a position we have consistently maintained since the Government’s initial announcement in support of expansion last year.
I would like to touch on some of the general points raised during the debate on the potential impact of Heathrow expansion, but two small points of detail were originally raised that I would like to address first. First, on the introduction of a civil aviation Bill, the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill is a Lords Bill and I am pleased to confirm that it was introduced today. Secondly, on the principle of night flights, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that the current night flight restrictions at Heathrow are in place until 2028, but we intend to consult next year on proposals for the period that follows.
Although the ANPS review is ongoing and limits what can be said in detail at this stage, I want to reassure the House that both Parliament and constituents will have the formal opportunity to engage when the amended draft ANPS is published for consultation and undergoes parliamentary scrutiny.
Heathrow expansion is a private sector project and the Government have been clear that it must be privately financed. Taxpayers will not bear the cost of expansion. The Government are working with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that flying out of Heathrow will be affordable and that any increases to fares during expansion are minimised. Protecting the interests of consumers is the CAA’s priority and keeping costs affordable will always be a part of the CAA’s considerations.
Munira Wilson
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Just before he got on to the cost point, he confirmed that the ANPS will receive parliamentary scrutiny. Can he clarify for the House whether that means a debate and a vote on the Floor of the House?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Once the ANPS is laid in Parliament, there is a 21 sitting day consideration period during which the House of Commons can resolve that a vote can be called on whether to approve the ANPS. There is also the important principle of Select Committee scrutiny. It is for the Liaison Committee, I believe, to determine which Committee is most appropriate to take forward Select Committee-level analysis of the implications of the ANPS, and to take oral evidence and so on. That process is all to come and will be folded into a robust process of parliamentary scrutiny that the Government fully support taking place through the Select Committee process.
It is our view that expansion could inject billions into our economy, support thousands of apprenticeships, and strengthen Heathrow’s status as a global passenger and airfreight hub. It should also deliver major benefits for passengers, including reduced delays and, ultimately, lower fares when compared with a world where Heathrow does not expand. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, and as part of the ANPS review the Department is developing analysis on the economic impacts of Heathrow expansion, the outcome of which will be published for consultation alongside the outcome of the ANPS review.
On the matter of climate commitments, the Government are clear that Heathrow expansion must align with our climate obligations. That is something that the Government remain absolutely committed to. The increasing carbon emissions associated with Heathrow do not in themselves mean that airport expansion cannot take place; the important point is that the Government remain able to meet their carbon reduction targets in the round. Economy-wide net zero and carbon budgets mean that even if emissions rise in one area, such as aviation, they must be fully balanced by either further carbon savings or high-quality and permanent greenhouse gas removals elsewhere.
The Government published their plan for delivering carbon budgets 4 to 6 on 29 October 2025, including on aviation, and we will be legislating for the carbon budget 7 target shortly. The current ANPS sets expectations on measures to mitigate the carbon impact of expansion at Heathrow, and those mitigations are being considered as part of the ANPS review.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned commitments around noise, which are incredibly important. We recognise the concern among communities that a new runway has the potential to cause an increase in noise. The current ANPS provides clear requirements on noise mitigation that any scheme should meet. That includes a scheduled night flight ban of 6.5 hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, a runway alternation scheme that provides affected communities with predictable periods of respite, and a noise envelope with clear noise performance targets that we will review as part of the ANPS.
On the two studies that the hon. Member for Twickenham referenced, I can confirm that they will be both be published shortly, and that hon. Members will be able to consider them fully alongside the ANPS process. There will be full transparency on the Government’s work to understand the impact of noise on both her constituents and people who live in proximity of airports across the country. We will consider those and other mitigations as part of the ANPS review.
On a separate note, Heathrow expansion could also make it easier for aircraft to land without extensive holding patterns, bringing some noise and carbon benefits. The review of the ANPS will consider whether any change is required to the noise impacts and mitigations set out in the original document.
The Government have consistently made it clear that air quality obligations must be met. The current ANPS sets out clear air quality requirements, and as part of the ongoing review of the ANPS we will consider whether any changes are required to the air quality impacts and mitigation measures contained within it.
Turning to the important reference that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) made to surface access, how people get to and from Heathrow airport is vitally important, and will be a key consideration as part of any plans for expansion. Plans must look to mitigate the impact on local and national transport networks. As part of the ANPS review we are considering the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effect of expansion on existing surface access arrangements.
Any promoter that wants to deliver expansion will need to model the impact of expansion on roads around the airport, including the M25, as part of their application, and consult with National Highways on their plans. As I previously mentioned, Heathrow expansion will be financed through private funding. That includes surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport, including potential rail links.
To touch briefly on the matter of parliamentary scrutiny, it is imperative that we listen carefully to everyone’s views on this transformative and landmark piece of infrastructure. Its impact will be felt for decades to come, and it has the potential to unlock significant economic benefits that could be felt across the United Kingdom. However, we fully recognise that there will be communities who have understandable concerns about what this could mean for them, and that is why the Government are launching a formal consultation on the drafted ANPS by the summer.
Peter Swallow
I want to push the Minister on mitigations around surface access. This is an opportunity not just to mitigate concerns about existing surface access arrangements, but to massively improve those arrangements. He will be aware that across a large swathe of the south of England, there is effectively no way to get to the airport apart from driving. Through this process we have an opportunity not just to mitigate concerns, but to boost and upgrade public transport networks to get to Heathrow airport.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend makes a fair challenge. He is right to say that the ANPS review and the consultation on it is an opportunity for us to look at some of these questions again and to consider how, with Heathrow continuing to offer its unique opportunity to the United Kingdom’s economy as our only international hub airport, we can facilitate better access for the communities surrounding it, both for the economic opportunities for employment and for people across the United Kingdom to fly and enjoy holidays with their families. He raises an important matter.
Dr Ben Spencer
I invite the Minister to Egham as part of his engagement on looking at surface access, where he will be able to see the carnage caused by the level crossings and the benefits of removing the level crossings and having a direct rail link from Egham to Heathrow. While he is there, he will probably also be able to hear the planes overhead and see the impact the noise is already having on that community.
Keir Mather
If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me setting out the terms of his invitation, I would be very grateful and happy to consider them. It would be great to visit his constituency.
As His Majesty noted yesterday, the Government are bringing forward the civil aviation Bill, which will ensure that the UK’s aviation sector remains competitive, resilient and fair so that it can continue to drive economic growth while delivering better outcomes for passengers. The Bill will also strengthen consumer rights and protections, promote economic growth and infrastructure provision and enhance aviation safety, supporting our world-leading aviation sector to continue thriving for decades to come.
I thank all Members for their robust scrutiny, both of me and of the measures that underpin our review of the airports national policy statement and the principle of Heathrow expansion overall. On a serious note, I encourage them to engage with us further on these matters. I understand that they have a lot of questions to answer from concerned constituents who want an explanation of how best they can participate in the consultation process for the future of their local communities, so I encourage them to reach out to me. I would be happy to discuss this further to arrange it accordingly. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.
The speech made by Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrat MP for Twickenham, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who is my constituency neighbour, and congratulate her on securing this important debate, on her excellent speech and on giving me permission to make a speech. I also thank the Minister for allowing me to speak today.
My hon. Friend has clearly laid out the key questions that Ministers need to address in approving a third runway at Heathrow, which we have heard publicly today. I am also grateful to the Minister for having previously met my hon. Friend and I when we set out a number of those questions privately to him.
As my hon. Friend has already said, in the King’s Speech yesterday the Government set out that
“Legislation will be introduced to unlock the benefits of airport expansion”.
I and many people, not least my constituents, are asking, “What benefits?” The truth is, as my hon. Friend has eloquently set out, the Government have provided precious little evidence to support their far-reaching claims of the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. Many of us can only see costs, be they financial, environmental or to health.
It is obvious that the Government’s expansion of Heathrow—not just Heathrow, but London City, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton—will have a significant impact on this country’s climate commitments. When I and other hon. Members have raised such concerns in the House, Ministers’ answers revert to sustainable aviation fuel every time. However, the reality is that SAF is not a silver bullet. As my hon. Friend has suggested, the Government’s expectation is for SAF to meet 22% of aviation fuel demand by 2040, while the Climate Change Committee’s prediction is just 17%. That will not be enough to make up for the 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of carbon emissions as a result of expansion. The Environmental Audit Committee has warned that by putting all our eggs in this basket, the Government’s delivery on carbon budgets and net zero is “in serious jeopardy”.
We must not lose sight of the human cost at the heart of this debate. Some 2.2 million people would suffer from an increase in noise pollution by 2050. Working people will see air pollution increase from congestion on the roads as the M25 is diverted for years—not to mention the permanent increase in traffic to the airport—and from thousands more flights over a very densely populated area, all pumping noxious fumes into our environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has set out clearly the resulting health impacts.
Over the past 15 months, I, like my hon. Friend and a number of others, have asked this Minister, his predecessor, the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Transport Secretary about the funding behind expansion. They all insist that taxpayers’ money will not be used to fund expansion of Heathrow, but frankly, that is hard to believe, given the unsustainable financial circumstances of Heathrow airport and the eye-watering, ever rising costs of a third runway. As we have heard, Heathrow itself has suggested that its expansion will cost £49 billion, but other estimates are much higher, and this country’s track record of delivering infrastructure on time and on budget is not exactly promising.
At the same time, Heathrow is beginning to resemble another financial omnishambles: Thames Water. Both have significant debt and are spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure while jacking up prices for bill payers—or, in this case, those taking flights—knowing that the Government are ultimately there to bail them out if it all goes wrong. Let us make no mistake: taxpayers will be expected to foot part of the bill, and hard-pressed families and businesses will be forced to pay more for holidays and business trips through higher fares to fund the higher landing charges, as even airlines have warned.
We deserve transparency and accountability from this Government, but at the moment we are getting neither. This Government are delaying publication of vital evidence, such as the aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude studies, when we know they have been sitting on the Minister’s desk for months. The Minister has been far from clear on whether this House will have the chance to scrutinise the ANPS properly, which means a debate and a vote. I very much hope he will address those questions head-on today.
Back in January 2025, the Chancellor staked her “growth credentials” on this huge project. This kind of infrastructure project needs both economic credibility and economic and political stability. We cannot have another HS2, where half the project gets cancelled a decade down the line—too much is at risk. With the week we have just had, I cannot see how this Chancellor and this Government can seriously be trusted to see through a project that could take a decade or more to build. The Minister must follow the evidence and put a stop to this expansion before it is too late, for the sake of taxpayers, for the sake of our local communities and for the sake of our environment.
The speech made by Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.
The debate surrounding a third runway at Heathrow has stretched over the past three decades. The Liberal Democrats have long stood by communities who oppose a third runway, arguing that the economic benefits are overstated and the environmental consequences are unavoidable. Although I have always opposed a third runway at Heathrow, the current proposal could not have come at a worse time. The cost of expansion has doubled over the past 10 years, and the addition of nearly 300,000 more flights, which expansion implies, will make our net zero targets almost unachievable.
It is widely rumoured that even Heathrow Airport Ltd did not believe the timing of expansion to be practical. Despite that, on 29 January 2025, the Chancellor announced her support for a third runway to be built at Heathrow airport. This endorsement was the landmark announcement during her speech on growth; as such, it has a significant amount of political weight behind it. My plea to the Minister is that any decision taken on a third runway at Heathrow should be based on merit and unbiased data, not politics. The decision has an enormous impact on millions of lives, and it must be more than just a signal to investors to compensate for the Government’s economic mismanagement.
The Chancellor believes that expansion at Heathrow will produce economic growth. Nearly 18 months later, however, the Government have yet to produce their economic analysis to support that assertion, and the figures raised in the Chancellor’s speech on growth were drawn directly from an internal business case prepared for Heathrow airport and have not been independently verified.
The Department for Transport’s own updated appraisal report from 2017 shows that the net present value of a third runway ranges from just £3.3 billion to minus £2.2 billion. Now it has been admitted that even that figure is a generous estimate, as the DFT’s guidance suggests that international transfer passengers, who are estimated to make up 75% of a projected third runway’s capacity, do not contribute to the UK’s economy. When discounting those passengers, it is estimated that the net present value could be reduced by as much as a further £5.5 billion.
In addition, the New Economics Foundation asserts that twice as many people fly out of the UK than fly in, thus exporting more money out of our economy. An assessment of the impacts of inbound and outbound tourism flows is currently missing from the economic analysis of aviation’s contribution to the economy. Will the Minister provide reassurance that that research will be conducted and published with the airports national policy statement?
Heathrow Airport Ltd has cited that the cost of building a third runway will be an eyewatering £49 billion, before factoring in an estimated £100 billion in carbon abatement costs and at least £15 billion of investment on surface access upgrade improvements. Without that upgrade, there will be no way to deliver sufficient passengers to Heathrow to utilise the additional capacity and deliver the supposed economic benefits.
The Government have said that funding for a third runway at Heathrow will be privately financed. With Heathrow already drowning in over £15 billion-worth of debt, I am not convinced. I would therefore like to ask again, will the Minister provide reassurances that none of the costs associated with building a third runway at Heathrow will be pushed on to the taxpayer?
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate on an issue that matters to my constituents in Hillingdon, to her constituents and to many constituents across the west London area. As she rightly points out, there have been discussions about the third runway being privately financed, but as she has touched on, there are public sector burdens and costs too, including from the extra pressure on the Elizabeth line, because of the capacity that will be needed, and on the local road network. Does she agree that it is vital when looking at the economic case that possible public sector pressures are fully accounted for in the decision-making process? Does she agree that the Government’s four tests are absolutely vital, and that we need transparency about how those tests will be measured and assessed?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to see the economic case and to look at it in the round—not just the specific costs associated with building the runway, but all the additional costs associated with operating it at capacity and all the impacts that that will have on Heathrow, along with the whole of London and the south-east.
The economic argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny, while the social and environmental consequences of a third runway are unavoidable. Communities would be severely impacted by the additional flights that a third runway would bring. It is expected that nearly 325,000 more people will fall within the Department for Transport’s “significantly affected” decibel level measurement. That does not even reference the increased bombardment of noise that houses already impacted by Heathrow’s flights are likely to experience. Not only would that noise disturbance affect people’s everyday lives, whether their sleeping pattern or their ability to work from home, it would have serious physical and mental health repercussions for local residents.
People living in communities surrounding Heathrow have a 24% higher chance of stroke, a 21% higher chance of heart disease and a 14% higher chance of cardiovascular disease compared with people exposed to low levels of aircraft noise. Will the Minister confirm how many people will be exposed to noise at 45 decibels, the level that the World Health Organisation estimates that health impacts begin? Will the Government commit to setting a minimum acceptable level of noise by which any expansion proposal can be judged? Will the Government also commit to ensuring that there is no increase in night flights? People deserve a full night of undisrupted sleep, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government do not plan to approve anything that would mean more planes fly over households during night hours.
Yesterday, the Government outlined their plan to introduce the civil aviation Bill in this parliamentary Session. Will the Minister outline a timeline for the introduction of that Bill, and will he explain how the Government can provide communities with reassurances that a third runway will not bring new or extended disruptions when airspace changes are yet even to be drawn up?
On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding nearly 300,000 extra flights to our skies each year will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change. This Government have used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from Heathrow expansion. They are yet to provide any evidence that shows how Heathrow can expand while complying with their legal air pollution limits.
International uncertainty over China’s introduction of their SAF mandate, which accounts for more than 90% of our imported SAF, and challenges to UK-US trade have meant that the UK’s SAF targets, which in themselves would not mitigate pollution from Heathrow expansion, are even more difficult to deliver. The challenges to the UK’s ability to produce and import SAF were underscored by the Climate Change Committee’s report last year, which estimated that only 17% of the UK’s aviation industry will use SAF by 2040. That is 5% lower than the Government’s mandated targets and 8% below the EU’s target. The estimate does not even take into account the additional flights that would come in and out of the UK as a result of the proposed airport expansion.
Heathrow is already the single biggest source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of CO2 every year. The Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway to net zero estimates that aviation will contribute 23 megatonnes of CO2 by 2050. A third runway at Heathrow would increase emissions at the airport alone to 20 megatonnes. Does the Minister still believe that the UK can be compliant with our net zero targets with the expansion of Heathrow airport?
This Government have repeated that they will honour and respect the Labour party’s four tests, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). They are: growth across the country, noise issues to be addressed, air quality to be protected and our climate change objectives to be met. They must be passed before expansion can be approved. As I have just laid out, I do not believe that any of those tests can be passed, let alone all four, but I ask that the Government honour the principle of the tests and do not attempt to circumvent them by using biased data.
I hope I have underlined the importance of this decision for our economy, environment and local communities. Moreover, I hope that this speech has impressed on the Government that this decision cannot move ahead solely on the basis of political expediency.
The speech made by Sarah Edwards, the Labour MP for Tamworth, in the House of Commons on 12 February 2026.
It is good to see so many hon. and right hon. Members present to take part in this important debate on school minibus safety. No family should ever have to question whether their child will return home safely from a school activity. For my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, that unthinkable fear became a devastating reality. In November 1993, a minibus carrying 14 children was involved in a catastrophic crash on the M40 near Hagley. Twelve children and their teacher lost their lives, and among them was Liz and Steve’s beloved daughter, Claire.
I first met Liz and Steve while campaigning in my by-election in 2023. They bravely shared their story with me and invited me to support their ongoing campaign to make school minibuses safer, so that no child would ever be put at risk while travelling to or from school activities. Since then, I have stood with them in their tireless efforts to improve safety, not just for the children who travel in these vehicles, but for the teachers and staff who are asked to drive them. More than 30 years have now passed since that tragedy, and while important improvements have been made in areas such as seatbelt provision and vehicle construction standards, the underlying regulatory framework that allows teachers to drive minibuses without full professional training remains largely unchanged.
Children’s safety should not be up for debate. This is about reducing risks that we already know can be prevented. It is about asking whether the legal framework that governs the transport of pupils to and from school activities truly matches the weight of that responsibility. Every time a child steps on to a school minibus, parents place their trust in the system that stands behind it. That system must be strong, consistent and—above all—capable of keeping every child safe. At the moment, many of us believe that that system falls short.
The system that governs school minibuses is built around section 19 permits, introduced under the Transport Act 1985. These permits allow not-for-profit organisations, including schools, to run minibuses without holding a full public service vehicle operator’s licence. Under that system, drivers must meet certain basic licensing conditions, but they are not required to hold a full passenger carrying vehicle licence. Nor are they required by law to undertake accredited professional training.
The official guidance, which dates from 2013, states that drivers must be suitably trained and correctly licensed. It even recognises that driving a minibus requires additional skills, and is simply not the same as driving a large car. However, it is guidance, so it is advisory, and there are no checks by the Department for Education or Ofsted on its implementation or use. Schools are encouraged to consider specialist training, but they are not required to do so. At the moment, the guidance is not strong enough to guarantee children’s safety. That is why, alongside Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, and the NASUWT, I have been calling for stronger, clearer regulations to make sure that every child can travel safely, and that teachers and staff are properly trained and supported to carry out that responsibility.
It is also important to understand how and why the framework came about. Section 19 and 22 did not emerge from a careful review of child passenger safety. They were shaped largely by European market rules designed to regulate competition. In other words, the system that we rely on today was driven more by economic considerations than by the safety of schoolchildren. That historical origin has left us with a fragmented and confusing framework.
Private schools that are not charities are treated as commercial operators, and they must hold a full operator’s licence, meet strict financial and safety requirements, appoint a qualified transport manager, and employ fully licensed, professionally trained drivers with regulated hours. That comprehensive legal framework is designed to protect children and ensure accountability. By contrast, many state schools transport children daily under section 19 permits without the same safeguards. They operate largely on guidance rather than law, with no mandatory professional training or oversight. In practice, teachers may drive minibuses at the end of a full teaching day without the protections required of commercial drivers.
That raises simple but troubling questions. Why should a child’s safety depend on the type of school they attend? Why should children in private schools travel under a full safety regime, while children in state schools rely on discretion and good will? I criticise not independent schools, which are complying with the law, but the two-tier system that affords different levels of protection to children—that is unfair and unacceptable.
The inconsistency goes further. Across the UK, standards vary by nation. In Northern Ireland, for example, driving a school minibus without a full D1 licence can be a disciplinary offence. Children’s safety should not depend on postcode, school type or geography. Every child deserves the same standards, protections and assurance that those responsible for their transport are properly trained and accountable.
The Government recently stated before the Transport Committee that they do not wish to relax D1 licence requirements for community minibus drivers, citing road safety concerns. Around one in five candidates fails the D1 test, even after extensive training. That failure rate is a clear indication of the level of skill and competence required to operate such vehicles safely.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I am concerned that under the current system, someone could fail their test to drive a minibus in a professional setting and it would not stop them from driving one in a school setting, which does not require a D1 licence. Why is that licence not required to drive children to and from school activities? It fundamentally does not make sense. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Sarah Edwards
That is precisely my concern. It does not make sense at all given that failure means an inability to drive safely. We should surely apply the same standards or higher when children are involved.
Under the current school system, a teacher over the age of 21 who holds only a standard category B car licence and has just two years’ driving experience can legally drive a minibus carrying children, without holding a full passenger carrying vehicle licence and without undertaking any mandatory accredited training—so, too, can the individual who has failed their D1 driving test. This creates a stark and troubling inconsistency in the Government’s own stated aims.
In every other context, professional passenger transport is treated as high risk, with rigorous training, testing and regulation designed to protect passengers. Yet the law allows schoolchildren—the most vulnerable passengers, some might argue—to be transported under a system that relies on guidance rather than on statutory safeguards. We must ask ourselves: if the Government recognise the dangers and the skill required to drive a minibus in every other setting, why do they not apply the same standards to those entrusted with the lives of children? The safety of our school pupils should not be left to chance or good will.
Current guidance recognises the dangers of driver fatigue and advises against long journeys after a day of work, but those are only recommendations. In practice, teachers are often expected to drive minibuses at the end of long teaching days. They are responsible for driving larger, more complex vehicles while supervising pupils at the same time. In some cases, they are the only adult on board. That presents serious risks in the event of a breakdown, an emergency or a behavioural incident. This is not about blaming teachers—they are dedicated professionals—but the system places enormous responsibility on them without the professional safeguards that exist in other areas of passenger transport. It is no surprise that growing numbers of teachers are choosing not to drive minibuses, citing stress and concerns about personal liability.
There is also clear confusion and inconsistency in the system. Guidance on section 19 permits has been interpreted in different ways, and some local authorities and academy trusts apply their own requirements that differ from national guidance. That uncertainty does not make children safer. The NASUWT teaching union has described the current regime as “not fit for purpose”, and a 2024 survey found inconsistent compliance with legal requirements and guidance across many schools. In some cases, management is aware of the shortcomings. In others, problems arise because guidance is unclear and training is lacking. Vehicle faults and poor maintenance have been identified, leaving teachers unknowingly responsible for the vehicle’s roadworthiness. The same survey found that 24% of teachers felt pressured to drive a minibus despite feeling unqualified to do so. Although NASUWT guidance is available to teachers, the union ultimately advises staff not to drive minibuses at all, due to the legal, safety and personal liability risks involved.
Concerns have also been raised about the use of lightweight minibuses, which are basically converted vans fitted with seats. Many of these vehicles weigh less than 3.5 tonnes, which allows schools to bypass the training and licensing requirements that would otherwise apply to those who obtained their category B car licence after 1997. In effect, these vehicles have become a cheaper workaround for schools, but that cost saving comes with significant safety compromises: these lightweight minibuses often lack essential features such as side impact protection or full airbag coverage, leaving children and staff more vulnerable in the event of a collision. In practice, gross vehicle weight limits are not always routinely checked before journeys begin. Many teachers are unaware that once they take a vehicle on to the road, they are legally responsible for not only their driving but ensuring that the vehicle is roadworthy and compliant with regulations.
This combination of under-equipped vehicles, insufficient oversight and limited professional training creates a serious safety risk. Teachers can find themselves responsible for dozens of children in a vehicle that is not designed to carry them safely, with no back-up if something goes wrong. The risk is not theoretical; it is a real and present danger that must be addressed. We should not accept a system where cost, convenience or outdated loopholes determine the level of protection that children receive. Every child, in every school, should be transported in a vehicle that meets robust safety standards, driven by someone who is properly trained, and supported by a clear and enforceable legal framework.
The so-called short distance exemption further complicates matters. Section 19 permits assume that journeys will normally take place within a 10-mile radius, except in rural areas, but many schools, including church schools and large multi-academy trusts operating across several counties, regularly travel well beyond that distance for sports fixtures and other activities. When what is meant to be exceptional becomes routine, it is reasonable to ask whether the legal framework is still fit for purpose.
At the same time, parents are often unaware of the regulatory distinctions that underpin school transport. Traditional written consent forms once gave parents a clear understanding of arrangements. Increasing reliance on digital systems means that many parents simply assume that robust, uniform standards are already in place. How many parents have been informed prior to a trip and asked whether they were happy for their child to be driven in a minibus by a teacher or staff member who could not demonstrate the level of training required for professional minibus operators?
Everything that we have heard and considered today makes it clear that the current system is failing both children and staff. We are allowing a two-tier approach to safety, where the protection that a child receives depends on the type of school that they attend. That cannot continue.
Sarah Edwards
I met Ministers from the Department for Transport in May 2025 and from the Department for Education more recently, but the suggested changes are yet to be made. The issue was not mentioned in the Government’s road safety strategy. I have already raised that concern with the Minister, and I am raising it in the House today to provide the detail and substance behind those concerns for the official record.
The road safety strategy sets out excellent ambitions for the protection of road users and cites issues around appropriate licences, which I applaud. I know the Minister is rightly proud of the strategy as a piece of work. I raise the issue of the continued use of permits for school minibus driving precisely because it cuts across the sentiment of the strategy, and I am disappointed that terms like “community transport” or “school minibuses” do not appear in the document at present, despite these inconsistencies being known to Departments.
I ask the Minister to take action about the following suggestions that I will set out. All schools, whether state-funded or independent, must be held to the same safety standards, with best practice an absolute minimum. Section 19 permits for schools should be replaced with statutory regulations, moving from guidance-based advice to enforceable legal standards, and aligning all school minibus operations with road safety priorities rather than simply community exemptions.
The Department for Education should have a list of all associated minibuses that schools use and operate, regardless of whether they are a local authority or an academy trust school. This information should be jointly shared with the Department for Transport, because at present no such information exists, nor does the ability to extract minibus accident data from generic passenger vehicle data, meaning that minibuses are treated in the same way as buses or coaches in Government data. That makes further analysis of the issue difficult.
The professionalisation of school minibus driving must be mandated. All drivers should hold a passenger carrying vehicle licence or D1 qualification in order to operate a school minibus. Every school fleet should be overseen by a transport manager, and drivers must undergo checks on eyesight, health and driving records.
The use of lightweight minibuses must be phased out or banned. Children should travel in vehicles built to proper safety standards, not those chosen to save costs. A national inspection and enforcement regime must be introduced. DVSA inspections should cover all school transport, not just commercial operators, with vehicles and drivers tracked in a centralised, transparent system.
Legal grey areas must be clarified. Government guidance should remove ambiguity around terms such as “volunteer”, “hire or reward” and “non-commercial”, and the guidance must be court-tested and enforceable.
Teacher wellbeing and safety must be protected. Driving duties should not fall to teachers after a full working day. Minibus driving should be recognised as a specialised responsibility in schools, not an informal task. We also believe that transport safety should be included in Ofsted inspections, and the long-term impact of accidents on both pupils and staff, including mental health and trauma, must be taken seriously.
In closing, these are not abstract or minor reforms. They are essential steps to ensure that every child can travel safely to and from school activities, and that the adults entrusted with that responsibility are fully supported, trained and accountable. I think of Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, and the courage it has taken them to turn their personal tragedy into a tireless campaign for safer school transport. Their determination reminds us all why reform cannot wait, because sadly during the time that we have been campaigning together and meeting Ministers, other such tragedies have occurred.
I urge the Government to take steps to close the ambiguity and to further their aims for road safety for all who use them. Our children deserve nothing less than a system that guarantees their safety, values the teachers who transport them and removes the inequalities and risks that underpin the current framework. It is time for decisive action. I thank the Minister for coming here today and I commend this debate to the House.
The comments made by Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, on 14 January 2026.
Two hundred years ago, we built the world’s first passenger railway between Liverpool and Manchester – and changed history. After more than a decade of dither, delay and broken promises, this is the start of a new era, with a genuinely strategic approach and a government finally backing Northern Powerhouse Rail in full.
A creaking rail system has held the North back for too long. Our journeys aren’t just slower – our growth has been slower too. Poor connectivity doesn’t just hold people back – it holds our economy back. It limits our productivity, restricts freight capacity, and chokes off opportunity.
Today that changes. This is the kind of ambition we’ve been crying out for. Not another empty slogan or back of a fag packet plan but real investment, delivered in a proper partnership with local leaders that will unleash our latent potential and unlock growth in all of our communities right across the great North.
The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 14 January 2026.
I spent three happy years in Leeds as a university student, a vibrant city I was proud to call home. But I’ve seen first hand what underinvestment and empty pledges do to cities across the North.
A reliable commute, a secure job, a thriving town centre – these are all things that everyone should expect. But over and over again people in Northern communities, from Liverpool and Manchester to York and Newcastle have been let down by broken promises.
This cycle has to end. No more paying lip service to the potential of the North, but backing it to the hilt.
That’s why this government is rolling up its sleeves to deliver real, lasting change for millions of people through Northern Powerhouse Rail: a major new rail network across the North that will deliver faster, more frequent services.
This investment is proof we’re putting our money where our mouth is, working with local leaders to deliver the transport links that will help working people do what they need to in life – getting to work, taking the kids to school, or days out with the family.
The comments made by Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, on 14 January 2026.
Finally, we have a government with an ambitious vision for the North, firm commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail and an openness to an underground station in Manchester city centre. A modernised Manchester Piccadilly could become the Kings Cross of the North, acting as a catalyst for major growth in our city region and beyond.
Over the past decade, we’ve become the UK’s fastest growing city region, but underinvestment in rail infrastructure has long acted as a brake on further growth. Today marks a significant step forward for Greater Manchester. We’ll now work at pace to prove the case for an underground station and work up detailed designs for the route between Liverpool and Manchester.
