(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I think this is the second time my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) has invited Members of this House to visit his constituency. I am a regular visitor—it is a beautiful part of the world—and I thank him for all that he is doing on the issue and on Haughley junction, which I will come on to.
Every week, I am out talking to local residents who raise the same issue over and over again: potholes. People in Ipswich and Suffolk are fed up. Frankly, they have every right to be. This is not something that has occurred just in the past year; this comes after years of under-investment. As my hon. Friend articulated so well, it is leaving rough and unpredictable surfaces that leave drivers with burst tyres, buckled wheels and expensive repairs. Cyclists are forced into rush hour traffic to avoid dangerous craters. Parents are late to work because the school run has revealed a new hole in the road.
For people across Ipswich and Suffolk, the state of our road network is not merely an inconvenience; it is a daily source of frustration, cost and, in some cases, genuine danger. That is why the publication of the Government’s road maintenance audit earlier this year was so important. For the first time, we have an objective measure of how councils are performing in maintaining our roads. Results for Suffolk were incredibly disappointing, although not surprising for anybody who uses our roads. Suffolk received an overall red rating, placing it among the worst-performing highways authorities in the country.
We have to be honest about what, and who, is culpable. Is it the Conservatives at Suffolk county council, who until May this year were in power for more than two decades? Was it their incompetence that led to one of the worst ratings in the country, or was it the Conservative Government here in Westminster who were in power for 14 years and starved Suffolk and its roads of the investment it needed? This is not just a little bit of rain; it is huge underfunding. Between 2011 and 2020, Suffolk’s annual highways allocation was cut from more than £22 million to £17.5 million.
I can only presume that whatever fantasy unicorns might have been in the 2024 general election manifesto should go in the same bucket as the unfunded hospitals and the Ely-Haughley upgrade that was announced three times but never funded. We cannot really believe any of it, given that the Conservatives had 14 years in power and their record was one of cutting funding. Admittedly, it crept up a little towards the end of their time in office, as the general election loomed, but by then it was too little, too late. The result was entirely predictable: short-term fixes became the norm, roads deteriorated and taxpayers ended up paying more in the long run. That is the consequence when incompetence and lack of interest are married with a complete lack of funding.
I am pleased that our Government are taking a fundamentally different approach. To make that possible, as I am sure the Minister will mention, we are investing £7.3 billion in local roads over four years and doubling national road maintenance funding by the end of this Parliament. That is the biggest investment in road maintenance our country has ever seen, and it includes record funding for Suffolk. Over the next four years, our county will receive £219 million to improve and maintain local roads.
By 2029-30, funding will reach nearly £65 million a year, nearly quadruple what it was under the Conservatives in 2020. That is not a modest uplift, tinkering around the edges or a temporary sticking-plaster; it represents a fundamental change in how our roads are funded. Instead of the hand-to-mouth approach of yearly settlements that we had under the Conservatives, this is a long-term funding commitment so that councils such as Suffolk county council will know exactly what they are getting for the next four years and can plan ahead. Instead of endless patch-and-mend repairs, they will have the certainty and resources to plan long-term improvements and prevent potholes in the first place, which is what we all want to see. That is the difference between the managed decline that we saw under the Conservatives, and the investment and renewal under our Government.
Investment alone, however, is not enough; delivery also matters. I will slightly depart from the assessment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. The new Reform administration at Suffolk county council did not create this mess—that lies squarely with the Conservatives, locally and nationally—but it has inherited record road maintenance funding and now has the responsibility to right the wrongs that have been evident in the system for years. It has the resources and now the certainty, and residents rightly expect to see results.
Pothole-riddled roads in Suffolk are not the county’s only transport challenge. I am delighted about the package of measures that the Government have allocated to our county, including £9 million to improve bus services, the biggest upgrade since 1998. They are investing £4.5 million for active travel, which includes improved walking and cycling provision, and committed nearly £55 million in funding for upgrades around the A12/A14 Seven Hills roundabout. These are significant investments, but of course I want more. On Ely-Haughley, for example, there is a single point of failure in Suffolk, which is the Orwell bridge—
Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman to remain within the scope of the debate, please?
Jack Abbott
I was about to say that road maintenance relies on transport infrastructure, which is why Ely-Haughley is so important. The Ely-Haughley scheme will take 100,000 HGVs off the road, which is incredibly important, but it is not a like-for-like replacement for the Orwell bridge, which is crossed by more than 12,000 HGVs a day coming from one of the world’s busiest container ports. That is a crucial piece of infrastructure. We have a job to do locally to make sure we renew the business case, which is now half a decade old, and see whether we can reduce the number of level crossings. The scheme has my wholehearted support, and support across the House, but we have a job to do in our local system. I am pleased that Transport East in particular has grasped the nettle.
Patrick Spencer
I have a sense of déjà vu. I feel I have said this to the hon. Member before, but it is incumbent on me to remind him that his party is now in government, with a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last week was the third opportunity for this Government to fund Ely-Haughley. I accept that it was not done by the previous Government, but he cannot just repeat some tired line like “You didn’t do it, so I shouldn’t be expected to do it either.” If it is so important, why is the hon. Member sitting here shouting at all of us, when it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer he needs to make this point to?
Jack Abbott
I appreciate that the hon. Member has not been in Parliament for a while, so he may not be aware of the conversations that we have been having across the system. He is absolutely right to point out that the previous Conservative Government pledged three times to move ahead with Ely-Haughley but did not allocate a single penny of funding. It is also the case, however, that we have met consistently with the Rail Minister about this issue. The business case that was put forward for Ely-Haughley is now half a decade out of date. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) can continue shaking his head, but this is the reality, and I am giving strong feedback. This is feedback, by the way, that Transport East has grasped, that the Cambridgeshire mayoral authority knows and that our chamber of commerce knows, so it seems that everybody apart from the hon. Member is aware of the detail here.
We have been asked, as a local system, to update the business case, because how can we reasonably ask the Government to fund something half a decade out of date, from before the Liz Truss mini-Budget? How can we reduce the number of level crossings along the Ely stretch, which will also reduce the cost of this important infrastructure scheme? Is there any private investment that we can put into it, in a similar way to the lower Thames crossing? Can we build up wider regional support for the scheme? The ball is in our court. Every single stakeholder locally knows that and is advancing with that.
The other thing I would say is that Suffolk has to get serious. Collectively, we have to get serious when we pitch for funding. We are competing against every single region and nation in this country. To sit there and amateurishly keep demanding the same thing, over and over again—[Interruption.]
Order. Can I remind Members to be mindful of their tone, please?
Jack Abbott
Absolutely. But to make the same amateurish demands time and again, without doing any of the straightforward things that have been clearly asked of us, is not feasible. That is why, collectively, the local system is heading towards the spending review and is making sure that we are doing the things that have been asked of us at a local level.
I hope that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich will listens to some of this and reflects on it, and that he will join with Transport East, the mayoral combined authority, the chambers of commerce and Members of all parties across the House on this. It does not look as though he is going to do that, which is unfortunate, because we could use all power to the wheel.
What I was going on to say, before I was interrupted, was about the fact that the Ely-Haughley upgrade is incredibly important. We want to move freight from HGVs on to our rail network. However, that is not a silver bullet for our local road system. As I say, 12,000 HGVs a day cross the Orwell bridge. We also have the Copdock junction, which I have talked to the previous Roads Minister about on a number of occasions. It is a crucial pinch point in our local road network, and one that impacts on Felixstowe. I am really hoping that we can move it forward in a future road investment strategy programme, after it was pushed from RIS3 to RIS4.
However, we have structural weaknesses within our road network. Although those schemes are incredibly important, there still seems to be a single point of failure in the Orwell bridge. Every time the bridge closes, Ipswich and the surrounding area grind to a halt. That pushes HGVs on to our country roads and unsuitable road networks, which creates an even bigger problem for road maintenance. Residents sit in traffic for hours, businesses lose money, emergency services are delayed and our local economy pays the price too.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s significant investment in potholes—£7 billion across this Parliament—but we have not yet talked about the impact that potholes have on pedestrians. In my constituency, residents have fallen in potholes while walking across roads, and wheelchair users and people with visual impairments have been injured while trying to traverse potholed roads. Does my hon. Friend agree that when we talk about investment in potholes, we need to consider accessibility and pavements as well? Issues have been raised with me about Owston Ferry, Norman Drive and Coppice Road. We need to tackle those with our investment too.
Jack Abbott
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is about not just the roads but the surrounding infrastructure, including our pavements. I walk the streets every weekend and the roads and pavements alike are in an incredibly poor state, so I hope the whole road maintenance network is looked at.
It is incredibly important that the Reform county council gets to work fixing those potholes, but we will keep coming back to this place time and again if we do not also deliver major infrastructure, such as the Ely and Haughley junctions and the Copdock interchange. As I say, I welcome the investment in the Seven Hills roundabout too.
To finish my point on the Orwell bridge, we also need to address that single point of failure, which is impacting our local economy. It is not just a bit of traffic; HGVs are being pushed on to unsuitable roads, including through our villages. That is why a northern bypass for Ipswich is so critical, not just for our town’s traffic but for the long-term future of Felixstowe and our surrounding economy.
A northern bypass is the only credible solution to that single point of failure, as a WSP report has previously outlined. It is incumbent on our local system to deliver it. The Reform county council has finally reopened work on it, six years after it was shelved with no credible alternative put forward. I hope that when that work reports back in the spring, we can go to Ministers and push ahead with that vital project.
For now, our residents deserve safe, reliable, well-maintained roads, and our businesses deserve infrastructure that supports growth rather than holding it back. The Government are doing their part, and the funding and opportunity are there for our county council. However, the new administration must now get on with the job and deliver the roads that the people of Ipswich and Suffolk deserve.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I pay credit to the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who chaired the debate earlier. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) on securing this important debate. He is a true champion for his constituents, and I am sure that they will appreciate his work in bringing the challenges that they face with potholes to this place.
Let me reflect on some of the speeches that we have heard. I find myself sitting opposite the Minister for not the first time this week, as we were in the Highways (Financing) Bill Committee earlier this week. We previously sat together on what was then the Business and Trade Committee, and I sit on an all-party parliamentary group with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley). I want to reflect on some of the real positives of cross-party working, as Westminster Hall has the ability to demonstrate to our constituents how well we can work together.
The speeches that we have heard today were a little honey and vinegar—that is perhaps the best way of putting it. I think that honey, rather than vinegar, tends to achieve the desired results. It was absolutely delightful to go on a journey in my imagination of melting Swiss cheese in Suffolk with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, although perhaps that journey is not delightful for the people actually doing it. It was disappointing to hear the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) be less parliamentary and collegiate. I felt rather let down by that, given the way in which Westminster Hall can really bring this place together.
The conditions of our roads have a direct impact on the lives of all our constituents. Many depend on our roads to get to work, take their children to school, attend medical appointments and run their businesses. In rural communities such as those in west Suffolk, there is often no alternative to travelling by car, yet for many drivers dodging potholes has become part of the daily routine.
Every journey brings the frustration of trying to avoid another jolt or an expensive repair bill. The RAC estimates that hitting a pothole can leave motorists—I include myself—facing a bill of up to £590 for damage that is simply not their fault. For cyclists and motorcyclists, the consequences can be much worse. When the same potholes remain week after week, people understandably wonder when anything will be done. They put up with diversions and road closures while repairs take place, only to see the surface break up again. They want repairs that last.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich raised the particular challenges that face west Suffolk. He rightly praised the excellent record of Suffolk county council’s previous Conservative administration, which repaired more potholes than were reported each year.
Jack Abbott
I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying about the previous Conservative administration at Suffolk county council, but they were the ones who received a red rating while in charge—one of the worst ratings in the whole country. That is not much of a record to be proud of, is it?
Alison Griffiths
I thank the hon. Member for his point. I simply refer him to the speech that I am making. My point is about potholes. The council demonstrably repaired more potholes than were reported each year.
Recently, the issue in west Suffolk has got worse, and pothole reports across the country rose from just under 14,000 in 2024-25 to more than 18,000 in 2025-26. It is a familiar picture in my West Sussex constituency. The county council received almost 24,000 pothole reports last year, up by more than a quarter on the year before. My constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton want roads they can rely on. When they report a pothole, they expect it to be fixed and for that to be that. They should not have to report the same issue again a few months later. It is all the more frustrating when the council’s own figures show that the average cost of repairing a pothole rose from about £82 in 2024-25 to £118 in 2025-26.
Returning to Suffolk, the A143 between Stanton and Ixworth was resurfaced in September last year, as we heard from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket.