National Highways Maintenance and the A5036

Debate between Carolyn Harris and Peter Dowd

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I will call Peter Dowd to move the motion and the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered National Highways maintenance and management of the A5036.

May I say what an absolute pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris? It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his chair, although not as much of a pleasure as it is to see Mrs Harris in the Chair.

I will set out some context to the issue of National Highways’ maintenance and management of the A5036. The A5036 is the main road from the M57 and M58 down to Liverpool port—in effect, the port access road—and is, I think, the only A road in the whole Merseyside city region that is managed by National Highways. There may be smaller ones in the Wirral or south Wirral, but for all intents and purposes it is the only major A road that National Highways manages in Merseyside city region, as I understand it. The road has about 40,000 traffic movements a day, or thereabouts, which is about 1,600 an hour; hon. Members can imagine that that is huge amount of traffic at peak times. The road is about 4 miles long, from the M58, down the A580, through to the docks.

I can also provide a bit more context as to why I am raising this matter. Some months ago, I had to raise with Mr Speaker a point of order in relation to what I saw as the inappropriate behaviour of the north-west office of National Highways. That revolved around a freedom of information request that a local group, the Rimrose Valley Friends, submitted to the office. When we got the information, some of the comments were completely inappropriate. They more or less said, “We best not tell the Member of Parliament”—that is, me—“about certain issues, because he will go off and rile up his constituents.” That is what they said, and that is the tone and culture of that organisation. I raised that with Mr Speaker, and the then Minister came to speak to me about it. That has set the tone for attempts to engage with National Highways in my constituency.

The bottom line is this: I do not underestimate the challenges of keeping a road of this nature, which is about 4 miles long, in some sort of shape in collaboration with the local authority. However, it is not a motorway; it is a road that goes from the M58 and M57 through residential areas. The residents expect that National Highways, in collaboration with whatever its partners are, will keep that road in some sort of order. I know that the local authority has had challenges working with National Highways on the matter, whether in relation to litter, detritus on the road or weeds. It appears that National Highways’ view is that the weeds do not affect the safety of the road—that, although the weeds are everywhere, they are not six feet high. National Highways seems to take the view that that does not matter, and it does not take into account the environment that people have to live in.

It is clear that the people along the road and in the area are put out, to say the least, by National Highways’ attitude to the matter. National Highways has an insouciant attitude: it does not think it is accountable to anybody, and it feels able to make the comments that it made about me in documentation. That sets the tone—I think I have said that three or four times—and consequently trying to engage with it is very difficult.

I will tell hon. Members another anecdote. There is a footbridge at Park Lane West that has been there for about 50 years. It links two communities, which include a church and a school; most children from one side of that major road have to go to the other. There were plans to rebuild it—National Highways bought land to build it up to modern standards—but there was delay after delay, and after a lorry collision it was decided that the bridge would be taken down. That gave National Highways the opportunity, as part of its maintenance programme, not to go ahead with building the new bridge.

National Highways said that the figures had gone up, although it is difficult to find out precisely by how much because of its secrecy and lack of candour. I said, “Look, if it’s outside the parameters of the particular cost set for the bridge, you may wish to go and ask the Department for exemption.” There is always the opportunity to use discretion in such situations. If National Highways was not able to use its discretion, perhaps the Department or the Minister could do so.

The situation rolled on and on, and about four weeks ago I asked the people at National Highways whether they had bothered to ask the Minister. They said, “No. We haven’t bothered to ask the Minister because we don’t want the bridge.” That was not the question they were asked. They were asked, “Could you go off and ask the Minister, the Department or whoever else for this dispensation?” That is the culture. They decided—as it said in the document—that a footbridge is a 20th-century solution. Try telling that to all those children who are frightened to death to walk across the road, even with their parents. Try telling that to older people. It is a massively busy junction. It seems that the focus is just on getting traffic along the road without taking appropriate account of the public and pedestrians. Of course, I have been told, “Oh well, we’re going to have a new pedestrian approach to this crossing.”

State Pension Age (Women)

Debate between Carolyn Harris and Peter Dowd

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Half a million women, including more than 3,500 in my constituency, are asking the Government why they have to wait up to six years longer for their state pension. During their working lives, they paid national insurance contributions expecting to get their pension at the age of 60, an age fixed in 1940 and five years below that for men.

In 1995, the Conservative Government set out a timetable to equalise the pension age for men and women at 65. They fixed a start date 15 years ahead—April 2010—and phased in the changes slowly, so that only from April 2020 would women born in April 1955 or later not get their state pension at 65. The pending changes were largely ignored except for a small section in the financial section of a broadsheet. The women affected, who were then aged 45, were not warned by the Department of Social Security.

[Peter Dowd]

One of my constituents, Angela Pugh, has sent me valuable information, and I thank her and WASPI. She outlined one woman’s experience. She said that the job market is not ready to accept older women and that many are forced to accept zero-hours contracts, temporary contracts or low-paid contracts that offer no financial security. Does my hon. Friend agree that those women—the backbone of this country—have been betrayed by the Conservatives?

[Carolyn Harris]

I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend.

In 1995, 2020 seemed a long time away. In 2007, the Labour Government decided to increase the retirement age for both men and women to 66, but included a caveat that no changes would be made until 2024. In 2011, the coalition Government unsurprisingly reneged on that caveat and set a new timetable that was tough on women and broke a pledge that there would be no change until after 2020.