Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Meg Hillier Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I am going to make some progress.

However, in some areas such as franchising, the last Government did not go far enough, so this Bill will not only build on previous reforms but go further—much further—in fixing the faults that are still holding the industry back from meeting the needs of local people. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will see the merits of the approach that we are taking. After all, we have all heard from constituents about jobs not taken and opportunities missed because bus services are too unreliable, or do not operate on Sundays, or do not cater for night-time shifts.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

In London we have benefited for a long time from bus services that are better than those in the rest of the country, and I wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. Friend’s desire to level that up, but in London we also have floating bus stops. I know that matching the needs of cyclists, of whom I am one, with those of others involves a delicate balance, but for someone who is blind, visually impaired or encumbered by, for instance, a buggy, getting off a bus at a floating bus stop is very dangerous. What plans has my right hon. Friend to tackle the issue across the country?

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend may know that in the Bill we commit ourselves to producing design guidance for local authorities so that they can look at what is best practice. She may also know that in the other place the Rail Minister said we were committing ourselves to a non-statutory pause on the type of floating bus stop that requires a passenger to alight directly on a cycle lane. I hope that that gives her some reassurance.

Stockport Railway Station

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Navendu Mishra]

I agree entirely. To go back to my previous point, if we want people to use public transport, we need to offer services that match their needs. I lived in Hazel Grove for several years, and I know the stations that the hon. Lady mentions. I agree that Stockport is a large station—it had almost 4 million entries and exits in the last reporting period—but we should not overlook the smaller stations. Unfortunately, over the last few decades, the north and north-west of England has been overlooked when it comes to transport investment. I agree with the hon. Lady, and there is a lot to be said about people commuting from smaller stations to larger stations and getting connections to Manchester airport, Birmingham, Cornwall, London or even Scotland.

Disabled passengers too often face faulty lifts and have no way to access the platforms, and that problem is persistent across my constituency. Sadly, three out of five rail stations in my constituency—Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South—do not have step-free access, and I want to see that addressed as soon as possible. It is simply unacceptable that disabled passengers, parents with pushchairs, older people and people who are less mobile than us are excluded from using their local stations with dignity and ease.

I want to put on the record my thanks to Nathaniel Yates, a local champion from the Reddish part of Stockport —I think the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has met him—who has done a lot of work on step-free access at railway stations, not just in Stockport but across Greater Manchester.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sorry to intrude in a debate on Stockport railway station, but I feel a burning need to highlight the issues of Dalston Kingsland station. That railway line was the London Overground but the Mayor of London has renamed it different things in different areas, and that part is now the Mildmay line. That station has no lift, unlike others on that line. That really is a big issue, especially as it is close to the world-famous Ridley Road market, so it attracts a lot of visitors. I hope the Minister will cover how fast we can get lifts into stations without step-free access.

[Navendu Mishra]

I am not familiar with that station, but I agree wholeheartedly that people should not be excluded from our public transport network due to their physical ability. That is just not acceptable in modern Britain.

I want to call out the previous Conservative Government’s plans to close hundreds of ticket offices, including at key stations such as Stockport. Those proposals were entirely unacceptable because they ignored the needs of disabled passengers, older travellers and anyone who is less able to use the internet. Disabled people already face numerous barriers in accessing the railway and are three times less likely to travel by rail than non-disabled people. That is why it is so important that we have good-quality, reliable infrastructure that supports disabled people, and lifts and doors that do not break down frequently, as they do at Stockport station. Ticket offices provide a fixed location for passengers to locate staff and, therefore, advice and assistance. That is particularly important for many disabled people, who are less able to search the station for a roaming member of staff.

The RMT union has long-standing concerns about Avanti’s failure to fill station staff vacancies and its widespread reliance on fixed-term contracts. That understaffing is leading to delays at ticket offices and cases of ticket offices not being open during their advertised and regulated hours. That clearly impacts the passenger experience, safety and accessibility. Sadly, it seems that Avanti is putting private profits before public safety and accessibility. I am told that Avanti paid out shareholder dividends of £8.1 million in 2024. Ticket office staffing in Stockport is inconsistent and simply not good enough. The Government should instruct Avanti to permanently fill all existing vacancies, transfer staff on fixed-term contracts to permanent contracts and ensure its ticket offices and stations are properly staffed.

As I have noted, Stockport station is one of the busiest in Greater Manchester, yet its condition is far below what passengers deserve. I welcome the recent announcement by Network Rail to repair the frequently faulty lifts—£46,000 is being invested at the station to make step-free access more reliable for passengers—but that should be the start, not the end of the investment at our station. Basic maintenance is falling behind at the station, with leaking roofs, worn out toilets, and poor drainage causing repeated flooding on platforms.

One resident described the station as “incredibly uninviting”. They said that the

“lights are dim because they are covered in years of cobwebs and grime”

and that parts of the station are in “dire condition, often leaking”. The station’s pedestrian tunnel is dark, damp and neglected. One resident described it as being like an “old air raid shelter”. Another resident said that the station feels “poor, tired and dark” and that she

“doesn’t feel safe travelling as a woman alone in the evening or early mornings”.

Ticket vending machines are unreliable and the Edgely entrance to Stockport station is in a dire state. The station is well run but understaffed. Residents have reported to me a lack of gate staff, no permanent British Transport police presence, and serious concerns about road safety on the Edgeley entrance side. Tragically, there was recently a collision that left a member of the public injured on that side of the station, which was sad news.

I have raised these issues with Avanti. The broken main entrance door was finally replaced, but it should not have taken public shaming to get essential fixes done. While I welcome Network Rail’s investment in the Greek Street bridge near the station—it is investing almost £20 million in that project—it needs to go further and faster in improving the station for all.

I highlight that the viaduct, which I mentioned earlier, is an iconic part of Stockport’s skyline, but it is not part of Stockport station. The investment of £20 million in the Greek Street bridge is also welcome, but that is not part of the station. We need ringfenced investment in the station. I was recently out with the Network Rail team—I think it was in February—who have spent almost £1.1 million cleaning up and repairing the viaduct. That is great news for our town and for railway users, but the station needs a lot of love and investment.

Many people rely on the station, whether for commuting across the north-west or visiting Birmingham or London, but it has been unfairly left behind. Stockport residents are calling for proper investment to bring the station in line with others across the region. They want safety, accessibility and basic decency.

On a different point, I take the opportunity to urge the Minister to back the extension of the Metrolink tram system to Stockport town centre. That investment would be a huge boost for Stockport’s connectivity and local economy, helping people to get to work, school and healthcare appointments more easily and sustainably.

We have great connections from Stockport station, but sadly during covid TransPennine Express stopped direct services between Stockport and Manchester airport. I wrote to it but unfortunately got a disappointing response; I will be going back to it. I urge the Minister to visit it with me at some point.

The absence of a direct service from Stockport to Manchester airport creates unnecessary inconvenience for many residents, particularly those who rely on public transport for work. Manchester Airports Group is a large employer in my constituency, and many people commute from my constituency to Manchester airport. The indirect route is difficult for those carrying heavy luggage and for those who are less mobile or need assistance. I want to see that service reinstated as soon as possible.

I have mentioned this on a number of occasions in the Chamber, but may I pay tribute to the friends of Reddish South station? They are a brilliant community group in the Reddish part of Stockport who have worked tirelessly to improve their local railway station. They have been campaigning for years for proper rail services at Reddish South. Currently, Reddish South station has one train a week. Imagine having a local train station with one train a week—it is just ridiculous.

I echo the calls for further investment by Network Rail in better signalling in and around Stockport. Some of the engineering parts and equipment used around Stockport are quite dated. We need to ensure that the signalling infrastructure and equipment is the latest, cutting-edge equipment for safety standards and ease of use. We also need to unlock the future capability and reliability of our railway network, so that would be welcome. I am also very grateful to Friends of Heaton Chapel Station, who make a valuable and wonderful contribution to the community of Stockport.

I have gathered some feedback from members of staff at Stockport station, so I will quickly mention that. Many Members might be surprised to discover that we have an unusually named platform 0 at Stockport station. Sadly, due to staffing shortages platform 0 is often closed, because there are not enough Avanti staff. The Passenger Assist scheme, which is supposed to help those who are less mobile, those with health conditions or those with disabilities to access the railway, is a vital lifeline for many people. Unfortunately, I am told that the staffing for the Passenger Assist scheme is so poor at Stockport station that it is covered by one member of staff on a part-time basis. When that staff member is not in, platform staff, who should be focused on railway safety with trains arriving and departing, have to assist passengers. I recently tabled written parliamentary question 41630 on Passenger Assist. I thank the Minister and the Government for the £10 million to improve the Passenger Assist service. The capability to book a ticket, request assistance and reserve a seat in one single transaction will be widely welcomed by pretty much everyone—I cannot think of anyone who would be opposed to it.

British Transport police do a fantastic job, but they do not have a permanent presence at Stockport station and neither do we have permanent security staff. I call on Avanti and Network Rail to work together to resolve that.

I want Stockport station to be a place that residents can be proud of. The station is not just a local hub; it is a vital part of our critical national infrastructure. It deserves the investment, accessibility and support to match. Network Rail must accelerate investment in lifts, drainage, roofing and accessibility. More must be done to address basic maintenance failures before they become hazardous. I also want Avanti and Network Rail to work at pace to improve the staff facilities, which need to be upgraded. They do a fantastic job—I have already place on record my thanks to them—and they deserve good quality facilities when they take their breaks, and when they start and end their shifts.

I welcome the share of the city region sustainable transport settlements that Stockport will receive to progress development at Stockport station, but I urge the Minister to go further and faster with funding for modernisation and better connectivity at Stockport. I also ask the Minister to urge Avanti to end its over-reliance on temporary contracts and to fill ticket office vacancies. Sadly, I personally find that the ticket office at Stockport is frequently closed during advertised hours when it should be open. Ticket office closures risk denting revenue by deterring passengers, particularly disabled people, from using the railway. Passenger safety, service and accessibility are vital for a thriving railway.

I invite the Minister to visit Stockport again. I understand that he has been twice since he took up his position. Both times, he visited on a sitting day when I was in Westminster, so I invite him to visit again. I would love to take him to Reddish South station, which has one train a week; Stockport station, which has almost 4 million passenger rail entries and exits; and Brinnington and Heaton Chapel stations, which do not have step-free access.

I am grateful to many organisations, including the trade unions, which provided briefings for this debate. Avanti and Network Rail also helped me with a briefing. Nick from Avanti, in particular, has been really helpful. I conducted a survey on my Facebook page seeking feedback from residents and passengers on Stockport station. I received several submissions and I am so grateful to each and every one of the respondents for helping me to write this speech. I hope the Minister is able to address some of the points I have made, but my last point is that Network Rail and Avanti need to do so much more to make sure that Stockport station, and the smaller stations in Stockport, get the investment they have deserved for far too long.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I was pleased to find myself in Norfolk announcing huge amounts of investment in the region’s roads. There are a large number of schemes awaiting the outcome of the spending review, but I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the specific scheme that he raises.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4.   Electric bikes are very popular in my constituency. However, they travel at high speed—with a maximum speed limit of 15.5 mph—and are heavy, which is causing quite a lot of distress to many residents. They can be speed-limited, and often are in our parks. Has the Secretary of State considered a lower speed limit for e-bikes for safety reasons?

[Simon Lightwood]

E-cycles must comply with the existing regulations, which state that

“electrical assistance must cut off when the vehicle reaches 15.5mph”.

The police already have the power to seize e-cycles and electric motorbikes being used illegally and to fine individuals who fail to stop when instructed to do so.

Free Travel for Under-18s: London

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: 60% of children in London schools are BAME, and of course we know that those communities are affected the most.

Josh Brown-Smith, who is a 14-year-old student and adviser to the young mayor of Lewisham put it better than I could when he said:

“Taking away Zipcards effectively means that young people can’t get around the capital. It’s going to impact parents and it’s going to be a financial strain on my mother and others across the capital. Some families won’t be able to afford it—I know I won’t be able to afford it.”

The petition that Josh started has now reached more than 170,000 signatures.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this vital debate. Does she agree, further to the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), that this is effectively a tax on education? Many parents will already have chosen schools and have their children in secondary schools or colleges on the basis of free travel. They will either be forced to pull out or have to pay for it. This is a really significant issue for our young people.

[Ruth Cadbury]

One fifth of London’s secondary school children travel across borough boundaries and many travel long distances to go to the school of their choice, or even the only school that they could get into, because school places are at a premium in London, as we know, with the rising population and the gap in creating sufficient school places quickly enough.

A mother from Hounslow said that

“it’s hard to find money to put on an oyster card. I know it’s not free—someone has to pay—but the Zip Oyster card for kids did help.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I absolutely agree with my other honourable neighbour. She is absolutely right, because while London has the lowest car ownership in the UK, it does not take a lot of additional cars on the road to create extra congestion. That would send all the wrong messages and be completely contrary to the messages the Government are trying to bring in about alternative travel.

The Government expect this new system to be agreed and up and running in a matter of weeks when staff are already under huge pressure. I do not believe the Government have considered the logistics, and with no precedent for changing the concessions, there is also no way of knowing how many under-18s would still pay to use public transport. TfL expects a demand reduction of only 1% to 2% in the morning peak if these proposals were to be implemented from September, reaching only 5% by January, so the proposal is not even going to achieve the Government’s aim of reducing demand significantly.

TfL is willing and able to work with local authorities and schools on a range of measures to address demand, such as staggering start times, capping numbers on buses, and encouraging walking and cycling where possible for those who live near school, whereas this proposal, which might hit the already disadvantaged hardest, might only reduce demand during the morning rush hour by 1% to 2%.

The Minister might say that children should cycle, but even when new segregated cycle routes are in place, I challenge her to find many 2-mile to 5-mile home-to-school journeys that can be done by an 11-year-old, wholly on segregated cycle paths, including crossing major junctions or on quiet streets like in Hackney. Many boroughs are not implementing these schemes anyway. Kensington and Chelsea seems somewhat reluctant.

Furthermore, many low-income families do not own a bike, many homes have nowhere safe to store a bike and not everyone lives in a place where it is safe to walk to school. Those walking longer distances are at risk from those preying on vulnerable children. One mother said to me that the advantage of the bus is the CCTV, so the groomers and the robbers do not tend to use them. Many London children travel long distances to school, beyond the reach of the bike.

[Meg Hillier]

I thank my hon. Friend for being generous in giving way again. One of the benefits of this project when it was introduced was that it got whole generations of young people to realise that public transport was there and was useable. It got them in the habit. Does she not think there is another detrimental impact? It is a nice idea that everyone is going to hop on a bike instead of going by car, but it is not likely to happen.

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To quote the brilliant Josh from Lewisham again, public transport is a lifeline for so many of our young people.

So far, the Transport Secretary, in his responses on the issue to this House and to the Transport Committee, has paid lip service to the need to reduce demand, but seems to take delight in criticising TfL’s finances—what he claims is the Mayor’s mismanagement of them—and suggests that taxpayers elsewhere in the UK are unduly subsidising London. However, the previous Mayor of London, who is now the Prime Minister, agreed to phase out TfL’s direct operating grant. This left London as one of the only major cities in the world, and the only capital in Europe, not to receive direct Government funding for running day-to-day transport services. As a result, fares and commercial revenues have been forming just over 80% of TfL’s income. Before covid struck, TfL’s finances were in a strong place, but clearly, when tube ridership plummeted by 95%, it was simply not feasible for TfL to recuperate that income on its own. Hence it needs support.

Perhaps the imposed condition and the way it has been handled is an attempt to curb the Mayor’s powers, contrary to the Government’s professed support for devolution of powers to cities and regions. I hope not. The Government should let the London Mayor lead, and let TfL get on with the job it does so expertly every day—managing demand, providing safe journeys for children and young people, and keeping London moving.

Children and young people in Greater London, including my constituents, should not be the accidental victims of this apparent power tussle between the Government and the Mayor of London. I have some questions for the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this end-of-day debate on what is an important issue. It gives me a welcome opportunity to set out the policy and detail behind the generous support package agreed and given to Transport for London.

The covid-19 pandemic has given rise to an unprecedented health and public safety emergency. The Government continue to work to ensure that public transport is safe in these unprecedented times, and that the capacity is there for key workers and those who need to use public transport to support the critical restart of the economy. We can all agree that the transport network has a key role to play in supporting a safe and sustainable recovery for London.

A £1.6 billion extraordinary funding and financing agreement was first announced on 15 May. It was agreed to enable TfL to continue to operate services. The agreement contained a series of measures to manage demand and facilitate safe travel, including the temporary suspension of free travel for under-18s on buses. That was agreed by the Government, the Mayor of London and the Deputy Mayor for Transport. I make the point that these demand reduction measures were agreed by the Mayor of London. I quote from one of his public broadcasts on the matter:

“What we don’t want is children and their parents and carers using public transport during rush hour, leading to social interaction leading to the virus spreading.”

[Meg Hillier]

The Minister quotes the Mayor of London. I wonder whether she can tell me the date on which he made that comment about children not travelling on buses?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I will certainly write to her with that information.

Before the covid-19 crisis, around a third of journeys between 8 and 9 am were made by young people travelling to school. However, according to TfL, the average journey to school in London is less than one kilometre. The temporary suspension of free travel for under-18s is one way to manage demand for buses during the morning peak, and it is necessary to ensure that capacity is available to those who need it, including some schoolchildren, given reduced capacity as a result of social distancing measures.

I assure the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth that the Department continues to work closely with TfL on how that temporary suspension will be operationalised, while ensuring—this is a very important point—that any child eligible for free home-to-school travel under the Education Act 1996 will still receive it. The Department, to answer her question directly, is completing an equality impact assessment that will consider whether there are further categories of children who should receive free transport. Those children whom hon. Members have rightly expressed concerns about will receive free travel and this work is still continuing.

I can confirm, in answer to the hon. Lady’s questions, that the cost of the temporary suspension will not fall on London boroughs. In addition, the Department for Transport is working closely with TfL and the Department for Education to look at a whole range of other measures to help to manage demand for bus travel to and from school. That includes considering staggered start times, using coaches and promoting active travel. For those schoolchildren who no longer have access to free bus travel, I emphasise the opportunity that presents to promote and encourage use of active travel modes and to maximise the benefits of the Government’s record £2 billion investment in walking and cycling.

[Meg Hillier]

In my constituency, sadly we have a problem with gangs, and a parent has written to me saying that she does not want her son to be another statistic. She chose a school on a safe bus route to make sure he was safe. Switching to what the Minister describes as active travel, which I would normally support, is not as simple as she describes, and I hope she will recognise that.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point. All these matters are being considered in the work that is going on while this policy is being operationalised by TfL and the Department for Transport.

Walking and cycling will play a vital role in ensuring that pupils are able to attend classes safely and on time. While we do appreciate some of the challenges that have been identified, it is the Government’s preferred approach that pupils should walk and cycle wherever possible.

Thomas Cook

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I certainly will. The hon. Gentleman’s question has helped to highlight the issue, and I will do my best to do the same.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It would be helpful if the Secretary of State set out the cost to the taxpayer of Operation Matterhorn so far and what likelihood there is, realistically, of getting money back from individual people’s travel insurance.

[Grant Shapps]

Broadly speaking, we know that the previous Monarch operation was £50 million, and this issue is probably about twice the size, so that indicates a cost of some £100 million.

East Midlands Rail Franchise

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

I receive quite a number of lobbies on the Robin Hood line. I cannot provide the immediate reassurance that my hon. Friend is looking for, but I suggest that we could perhaps meet to discuss this further. I am aware that it will be of interest to many colleagues within the House.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Public Accounts Committee has repeatedly highlighted the problems with the franchising system, and the fact that we were whittled down to a single bidder underlines that. I thank the Minister’s Department for sending me details of the franchise. The interesting point is the extension of the Govia contract, which will go on until November of this year, with an option to extend the agreement, the Secretary of State tells me, to April 2020. Does this mean that the outcome of the root-and-branch rail review will be so conclusive that he will have the time to run a new franchising project within six months?

[Andrew Jones]

I think that the hon. Lady is referring to the south eastern franchise.

[Meg Hillier]

indicated assent.

[Andrew Jones]

Right. Well, that franchise is still under consideration and we will be announcing the results in due course. The point in the letter to the hon. Lady was that while that evaluation is taking place, there has been a short extension to the existing franchise to ensure that passenger services can continue to operate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, and I meet people from the sector quite regularly. His constituents will be assured—indeed, we have written to all applicants for the permits to indicate this to them—that the European Union’s position is that it intends to continue with the current arrangements. We put through measures to make sure that we had a contingency plan, which was supported across the House, but I do not expect it to be needed because, according to the EU itself, we will carry on with the current arrangements.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

We know that the contract with Seaborne was, in the words of the Secretary of State’s own permanent secretary, a “novel and exceptional” proposition, but she revealed yesterday to the Public Accounts Committee that the only confirmation that the Department had about the arrangements with Arklow were from Seaborne itself. There was no paper document and no contract was signed. The Secretary of State talks about due diligence, but we know it failed on due diligence, and we now know that there was no comfort document for the Department about the contract with Arklow, so will he tell us what due diligence he thinks did take place, because what we have seen shows that it did not?

[Chris Grayling]

At Christmastime, Arklow confirmed in writing, and we have copies of that—[Hon. Members: “In January.”] At Christmastime, Arklow confirmed in writing that it was backing the proposition. [Interruption.] At Christmastime, Mr Speaker. I hear the sedentary comments but I am absolutely clear: at Christmastime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The slight delay to the issuing of the new franchise is for complex reasons related to rail pensions. I have noted the issues that my right hon. Friend has raised. I am concerned about it. It would be unacceptable for any current franchisee to run down the franchise in the run-up to renewal, and a strong message is being sent to the company that, if that is happening, it has to stop right now.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is not clear to me what the unforeseeable emergency was that allowed the Secretary of State to award the contract to Seaborne Freight outside the rules. Did he receive explicit legal advice about that, and if so, will he consider publishing it?

[Chris Grayling]

We are confident that this was a proper procurement process, handled by the procurement team in my Department in the normal way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns in that respect. That is why the Department has asked the industry to come together in the transport infrastructure efficiency strategy, which was launched last year and which will benchmark costs, including in electrification, so that we get the greatest possible value for the money that we are investing in our railways.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have seen Crossrail delayed at great cost, a failure in electrification and many question marks over HS2. When will the Minister’s Department get a real grip on the cost and delivery of decent rail infrastructure in this country?

[Joseph Johnson]

We are investing £48 billion in these projects over the next five-year period. It is vital that we get value for money. Obviously, it is disappointing that Crossrail, which is a 100% subsidiary of Transport for London, told the Department that it needed to revise the delivery schedule for phase three of the project. We are disappointed by the news and want that phase completed as rapidly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is one of the largest and most expensive Government projects on the table. Just before Christmas the Public Accounts Committee heard from the Secretary of State’s permanent secretary about the evaluation of High Speed 1, which was two years late and was therefore not included in the evaluation for the early stages of High Speed 2. How can he convince us that he really has a grip on the costs of this project and that the House will have proper, full scrutiny of that challenge?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady represents a London constituency and will therefore get the benefit of Crossrail, which is a very expensive scheme—the expense is not dissimilar to that of the first part of phase 2 of HS2. We are evaluating the project very carefully indeed, and we look very closely at anything the Public Accounts Committee tells us—of course, it always tells us in hindsight; never in advance.