Show the Working

Scrap HS2

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Scrap HS2” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Public finances & the next generation — Mixed picture

moderate · low confidence

The policy claims a £25 billion saving, but government estimates put the cost of cancellation alone at £33–58 billion, likely wiping out or reversing any near-term saving. In the long run, avoiding a £87–102 billion project with poor value for money could help the debt path, but only if cancellation costs are managed and savings genuinely materialise.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the £25 billion stated saving accounts for the £33–58 billion cancellation and remediation costs (E4), which if not, means scrapping could worsen near-term public finances rather than improve them.

Our reading: The policy's stated £25 billion saving is the headline fiscal claim, but the evidence substantially undermines it in the near term. Cancellation and remediation costs alone are estimated at £33–58 billion (excluding already-spent money), which at their midpoint exceed the claimed saving. This means scrapping HS2 could worsen near-term public finances relative to the policy's own projection, depending on where actual cancellation costs land within that wide range. The £30 billion already spent is a sunk cost irrelevant to the forward decision, but the remediation liability is not. The long-term picture is more favourable for public finances: avoiding completion of a project whose total remaining cost is £87–102 billion and whose BCR has been assessed at as low as 0.4 could genuinely improve the long-run debt path. Spending that magnitude on an asset that costs more than it delivers in benefits worsens fiscal sustainability by definition. The PAC's 'very poor value for money' finding, accepted by the government, supports this. However, the verdict is mixed rather than 'improves' because: (1) the stated £25bn saving figure appears to ignore or substantially understate cancellation costs (E4); (2) any long-run saving depends on those costs being contained within the lower end of the £33–58bn range; and (3) the policy gives no committed mechanism or funded plan for what replaces HS2 (E25 is Reform's own framing). The net fiscal effect is genuinely uncertain over the near term and only plausibly positive over the long term if cancellation costs are well-managed. The wide cost ranges prevent a confident 'improves' verdict.

Prosperity & living standards — Mixed picture

moderate · low confidence

Scrapping HS2 avoids continued spending on a project widely judged to offer poor value for money, but cancellation costs alone could be £33–58 billion — potentially exceeding the stated £25 billion saving — and removes capacity, connectivity, and economic-uplift benefits that matter for long-run productivity. Whether prosperity improves depends almost entirely on what replaces it and whether the net fiscal arithmetic is actually positive.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether cancellation costs (estimated at £33–58 billion, excluding sunk costs) and lost economic benefits exceed the savings from stopping construction — and whether freed funds are reallocated to higher-value infrastructure.

Our reading: The central economic question is whether the net fiscal and productivity effect of scrapping HS2 is positive or negative for living standards and opportunity over the long run. On the 'improves' side: the truncated Phase 1 project has been independently assessed as very poor value for money, with a BCR of around 0.4 (Oxera) and even the government acknowledging costs outweigh benefits. The IFS has argued alternative projects could deliver more bang per pound. Avoiding continued expenditure on a demonstrably poor-VfM project and redirecting funds could improve aggregate prosperity — but only if the saved funds are actually reallocated to higher-value projects, which the policy text does not guarantee beyond general aspiration. On the 'worsens' side: the stated saving of £25 billion is immediately undermined by cancellation and remediation costs estimated at £33–58 billion (excluding the £30 billion already sunk). On this evidence, the net fiscal saving could be negative, not positive. Beyond the fiscal arithmetic, scrapping Phase 1 removes the projected economic uplift to the West Midlands (£10 billion and ~31,000 jobs, though these are HS2 Ltd commissioned estimates and likely optimistic), reduces passenger capacity by 17% against original projections, and further complicates regional rail connectivity — all of which weigh on long-run productivity and economic opportunity, particularly outside London. The verdict is 'mixed' because both channels are real and substantial, and neither can be dismissed on the available evidence. The direction of the net effect hinges on two unresolved parameters: whether actual cancellation costs land at the low or high end of the £33–58 billion range, and whether freed resources are genuinely redirected to higher-value infrastructure or absorbed elsewhere. Confidence is low because the decisive evidence — a credible independent whole-life cost-benefit comparison of completing vs cancelling Phase 1 now — is not available in the provided evidence units.

Good work & fair pay — Mixed picture

moderate · low confidence

Scrapping HS2 would eliminate tens of thousands of construction and supply-chain jobs tied to the project, but could free up funds for alternative infrastructure spending that might create different jobs. The net effect on workers depends heavily on whether saved money is actually redirected to labour-intensive alternatives.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the projected £25 billion saving is realistically redeployable to job-creating alternatives, given that cancellation itself carries estimated costs of £33–58 billion.

Our reading: The effect on good work and fair pay is genuinely mixed and uncertain. On the downside, scrapping HS2 would eliminate tens of thousands of construction and supply-chain jobs that the project was projected to sustain — over 30,000 in the West Midlands alone, plus nearly 19,000 around Old Oak Common. The earlier partial cancellation of the northern legs already demonstrated real-world harm to businesses and workers in the North who had geared up around HS2 supply chains. Scrapping the remainder would extend and deepen these losses. Additionally, the knock-on damage to integrated schemes like Northern Powerhouse Rail could further reduce regional employment prospects, particularly outside London. On the upside, the stated saving of £25 billion could in principle be redirected to more labour-intensive or better-value transport projects. The IFS has noted that smaller infrastructure projects may deliver more economic benefit per pound. If reallocated well, this spending could support comparable or superior job creation. However, the stated £25 billion saving is highly uncertain: cancellation costs alone are estimated at £33–58 billion, making the net saving figure implausible without further detail. This undermines the case that scrapping frees meaningful resources for redeployment. Overall, the immediate job losses are concrete and evidenced; the employment benefits of reallocation are speculative and contingent on decisions not specified in the policy. The magnitude is moderate because large numbers of workers are directly affected, but genuine uncertainty about the counterfactual keeps confidence low.

Clean environment & nature — Hurts

minor · low confidence

Scrapping HS2 removes the possibility of shifting passengers from road and air to rail, which could have helped cut emissions — but most of the environmental damage from construction has already happened, so cancellation doesn't undo that harm. The net effect on environment and nature is a modest long-term worsening, mainly through losing the modal-shift benefit.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether savings would be redirected to lower-carbon transport (conventional rail) or to roads, which would determine whether the net emissions impact is negligible or materially worse.

Our reading: The principal environmental relevance of HS2 for O6 is modal shift: a high-speed rail line that attracts passengers away from domestic flights and car journeys reduces transport-sector emissions. Scrapping HS2 eliminates that long-term decarbonisation pathway. The counterfactual — no additional rail capacity — leaves more passengers on higher-emission modes as population and demand grow. On biodiversity, the calculus is different: construction damage has substantially already occurred, so cancellation stops further direct habitat disruption but does not restore what has been lost. This means the biodiversity case is roughly neutral at the margin. The near-term effect of stopping construction is marginally positive (no further ground disruption), but the long-term effect of losing modal-shift capacity is a net negative for emissions trajectory. The policy states funds could go to 'conventional rail and roads'; if the road component dominates, the emissions cost rises further. Because the modal-shift benefit of HS2 Phase 1 alone (without the northern legs) was already heavily debated and the BCR questioned, the magnitude of the environmental loss is genuinely uncertain and likely minor rather than major. Confidence is low because the O6 effect hinges almost entirely on the unresolved question of what replaces HS2 — a claim the policy does not pin down.

Compare all parties on public finances & the next generation →Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Compare all parties on clean environment & nature →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home