National Highways Maintenance and the A5036

Debate between Jim Shannon and Peter Dowd

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[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.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. His passion and concern for his constituents is admirable. What is frustrating to me is National Highways’ response to his eloquent and sensible suggestions. The key issue, which he underlined, is the safety of the children. If a bridge that is important for the movement of children from one side of the road to the other is removed and not replaced, the safety issue is even more paramount. In the hon. Gentleman’s discussions with National Highways and the Minister, has a solution been proposed? There has to be a way.

[Peter Dowd]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I am trying to find the way forward. That bridge is a reflection of National Highways’ whole approach to things: we are an encumbrance on the stuff it has to do.

With some other people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), I met one of the previous transport Ministers, Baroness Vere, because National Highways refused to give certain information after a freedom of information request, and she had to say to its representatives, “Give them the information.” That is the context in which we are operating. I do not want to get too technical, but it is important that National Highways provides data and shares information to show us what it is doing, and why it is or is not doing certain things. It is, in effect, a company with a budget of £1.34 billion in resource and about £3.5 billion in capital. Why it cannot use some of that to replace a bridge that has been there for 50 years is beyond me, but that is a different point.

Litter is of concern. That has been identified in the report from the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, which I had to speak to about the situation, and it investigated National Highways. Surprise, surprise—although it was not a surprise in the least to me—the document it produced, the “ORR investigation into National Highways’ compliance with its licence and delivery of the second road investment strategy”, talks about:

“National Highways apparent concerns about sharing data and information restricts its ability to show how it is performing its function and results in more work for the company and for ORR.”

That quote sums up the situation. Of course, the Office of Rail and Road had to highlight that point to National Highways. The document goes on to say:

“National Highways has not been able to demonstrate consistently and reasonably, with evidence, the basis upon which it has taken decisions and the consequences of doing so on users”

—that is, my constituents—

“and network performance…During the investigation we identified instances where the company held material that it could, and should, have shared with ORR sooner, or where it told us it did not hold data or information that we needed to effectively carry out our statutory functions (and that we consider that the company should reasonably have held in order to carry out its own statutory functions)…National Highways provided around 300 pieces of information…While we would not have expected to see all this information as part of our business as usual or enhanced monitoring, there was enough across six areas of concern to indicate that there is more information that the company could and should share with us.”

That, from the independent Office of Rail and Road, again sums up the attitude of National Highways. In the grand scheme of things, how can any of us at a local level try to find that information, when even the Office of Rail and Road cannot get the information that it needs? As I indicated before, a Minister had to tell National Highways to give us the information. When we do find out the information it provides, it is absolutely outrageous, to the point that a Member of Parliament— that is, me—has to go off and raise the matter with a Minister.

That is the context. It is very difficult to engage with National Highways. There is an absolute lack of candour, a complete lack of respect for elected Members, a lack of respect for the local authority, but most important of all, a lack of respect for my constituents who have to live along that road, which is already challenging for them. I ask the Minister to take those issues into account when he responds, because this matter is not going to go away; this debate is not the end of it. The sooner National Highways understands that and tries to engage with me, with local residents and with the local authority—the partners and the users—the better.

I will finish on that point, but I reaffirm that this matter is not going away. I will be holding National Highways to account in every way I can to ensure that my constituents get the fair deal that they are entitled to.