Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Andrew Stephenson and Bill Esterson(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Stephenson
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are getting on with delivering record amounts of investment in our rail infrastructure, particularly across the north, with the TransPennine route upgrade. We announced £589 million for that investment, joining Manchester, Leeds and other great cities across the north of England. That will be the biggest investment in the conventional rail network. Of course, at the same time we are also making progress with major infrastructure projects such as high-speed rail; last week we concluded the parliamentary passage of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill, taking the railway line from the west midlands through to Crewe.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The Department is increasing rail freight at the port of Liverpool by enhancing the Bootle branch line. This will double capacity from one to two freight paths per hour each way, and will be completed later this year.
Bill Esterson [V]
Moving freight off the roads and on to rail is crucial if we are to cut carbon emissions. The changes that the Minister announced will be a very small contribution because the Government are planning a new road from the port of Liverpool through the Rimrose valley into my constituency, which will have precisely the opposite effect and increase emissions. Earlier, the Secretary of State told us that transport decarbonisation is at the heart of his plans. Do Ministers want to play their part in meeting Government targets or not? If they do, will they think again, look at the report produced by Arup for Sefton Council on alternatives to road from the port of Liverpool, and invest properly in rail freight?
Andrew Stephenson
Doubling capacity on the Bootle branch line is expected to meet forecast demand for the foreseeable future. Recent forecasts, unconstrained by limits on infrastructure capacity, indicate demand for 40 trains per day in each direction by 2043. Two paths per hour in each direction of course provides capacity for 48 freight trains per day. However, the nature of some freight requirements, particularly for shorter movements and smaller loads, means that road transport can sometimes be more economically efficient.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Andrew Stephenson and Bill Esterson(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Stephenson
I know that the hon. Lady has discussed the issue with my ministerial colleague. I am not dealing with it personally, but I should be more than happy to have a conversation with my hon. Friend about it and come back to the hon. Lady.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The British Retail Consortium has reported that the high-street footfall is at a six-year low. Town centre businesses across the country are closing. Labour has a five-point plan to reinvigorate our high streets, in stark contrast to the Government’s worn-out platitudes and failure to act. Precisely when is the Minister going to produce a plan—or will the Government just keep walking by on the other side of the high street?
Academies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Andrew Stephenson and Bill Esterson(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson
No, I am not giving way.
Aintree Davenhill primary school has had its first phase built, but the second phase has been halted. Many of the children at that school face the prospect of continuing their education in second world war sheds, freezing in the winter and baking hot in the summer. The school faces uncertainty at best and continued appalling conditions at worst. Why? To pay for the political dogma of the governing parties.
Bill Esterson
No, I am not giving way.
I was concerned to hear that the review of previously agreed projects extends to the previous Government’s academy programme. In the Medway towns, three academies were approved by the former Secretary of State, with the support of the former School Standards Minister and his predecessors. They had to make up for the failings of Tory-run Medway council, where the children’s services department had failed to address the long-term problems of underperforming schools, largely caused by the 11-plus and the selective system there, which contributes in no small measure to the fact that the secondary modern schools have high numbers of children with special educational needs that are not resourced properly.
Three academies are being built: Strood academy opened last September, and the Chatham and Gillingham academies open this September. In all three, the buildings are not fit for purpose. Strood and Chatham academies will open on two sites each, as they each replace two previous schools. All three academies serve deprived areas that need significant financial support. If their funding is withdrawn in favour of outstanding schools, as in the Government’s proposal, it will be one of the best examples—or worst examples, depending on someone’s viewpoint—of how the Bill will sacrifice those who are most in need of help in favour of those who need it least. I am glad that the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) is now in the Chamber to hear about the disgraceful way that the Government are failing his constituents.