National Highways: M5 Traffic Management

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Butler.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) on securing this debate on a topic that, as he clearly explained, is a matter of particular interest to his constituents. Of course, motorway closures are a concern across the country, because we all hate it when our journeys on the motorway network are disrupted for whatever reason it might be. For most motorway users, there is nothing worse than an unexpected closure or long delays resulting from roadworks. In my constituency, I can tell within 30 seconds of leaving the house whether the motorway has been closed, or whether there has been an accident, just by the volume of traffic on our local network.

Whether they are caused by an accident or roadworks, delays cause frustration and inconvenience. Whether it is speed restrictions that need to be in place for safety reasons or road closures that mean lengthy diversions, any unplanned incident can cause major delays and disruption on the network. I therefore have every sympathy with regular users of the M5 in Somerset, and indeed with those in the surrounding area, who have also been inconvenienced by a series of planned roadworks and the serious incidents to which the hon. Member referred. The experience of his constituent, Ms Halliday, brings out the human consequences of these delays. I have sympathy with her and everyone who has been affected.

However, as the hon. Member said, there is a trade-off here. As our motorway network starts to show signs of age—as we all do—more work is required to make sure it remains in a good and, importantly, safe condition. That is why the road investment strategy, published in March, included an unprecedented £8.4 billion of investment in renewing many of the assets on our motorways and trunk roads over the next five years. Those assets include many bridges and tunnels, some of which are approaching the end of their design life, and features such as drainage systems and safety barriers, which play an important role in keeping the network as safe as possible.

Our investment also sees a huge amount of resurfacing for smoother and safer journeys on the network, including by replacing large stretches of concrete road surfaces. That work needs to be done to ensure that we have a network fit for the future. The challenge, of course, as the hon. Member articulated, is to do it in a way that causes the least disruption for road users. He asked whether we are doing everything we can to ensure that disruption to his constituents, and indeed to all road users, is minimised. He will be interested to know that we have set targets for National Highways in the road investment strategy to reduce delays on the network, including from roadworks, and to produce an action plan setting out the steps it will take to deliver improvements.

The key target we have set is for National Highways to demonstrate that it has done all it reasonably can to reduce delays on the strategic road network, as we would all hope it is doing. We would also hope that average delay performance is no worse at the end of the five-year period than it is at the start. Although that might not seem particularly ambitious, it is quite a stretching target in the context of the resurfacing and renewal projects being delivered over the next five years.

We have also set a target to ensure that 97.5% of the network is free from traffic restrictions owing to roadworks, and that at least 88% of motorway incidents are cleared within one hour. We have also instructed National Highways to publish a customer and delay action plan and to deliver the actions it sets out, and to report on progress annually. We expect that to be published before the end of March next year. The Office of Rail and Road, the regulator, will hold National Highways to account for its performance in meeting those targets.

In the hon. Member’s constituency, a programme of work has been under way for some time to upgrade the drainage systems and replace the safety barriers in the central reservations between junctions 22 and 24 of the M5. He mentioned the question of more flexibility on the barriers, on which I will write to him, if that is okay. I understand the point he makes, but there are other safety considerations that we have to take into account. However, I will endeavour to get him a proper response.

National Highways has attempted to reduce the disruption caused by this particular programme of work by using overnight closures and lane restrictions, for example, rather than full-day motorway closures, which, as the hon. Member explained, would cause huge disruption to his constituents. There is a need for proper engagement with local stakeholders when roadworks will lead to delays and diversions. My ministerial colleagues and I have regularly raised this topic with National Highways in recent months.

National Highways has learned lessons from its handling of the major Lune Gorge renewal scheme in Cumbria, where some local stakeholders feel that not enough was done to involve them in discussions about the likely impacts on them and the options to mitigate those impacts. I am determined to ensure that when National Highways undertakes major renewal programmes in future, it works with local stakeholders and agrees a plan of action. It must do all it can to ensure that the most affected have a clear understanding of when closures or restrictions will be in place. We cannot remove disruption and delay entirely, but we all want to be clear and confident that National Highways has done absolutely everything it can to minimise that.

In respect of the M5, I understand that National Highways has regular dialogue with those likely to be affected by the planned roadworks. I know the hon. Member has met National Highways, which has discussed with Somerset council how best to ensure that diversions, including on the A38, are carefully planned and well signposted.

There will also be works in the not-too-distant future on junction 22A, where a new gigafactory will be put in place. The hon. Member will be acutely aware that introducing a new junction to the road network at junction 22A will be quite a disruption. Work has not yet started on the new access road, but I will ask National Highways to ensure that any further disruption to users of the M5 is minimised. I am sure the hon. Member will welcome that investment in his constituency and the long-term benefits that will arise from the new junction.

Decisions on when to close and safely reopen a motorway following an incident—such as attempts to take one’s own life, which I understand have been among the incidents affecting the M5—are for the emergency services to determine. That is usually the police, although it can occasionally be the fire and rescue service. The hon. Member asked whether anything can be done in terms of the protocol for those decisions. Clearly, that is outside my Department’s remit, but I commit to writing to ask the Home Office to talk to the relevant services about whether there is anything different they can do. It is important to say that when someone has been killed or seriously injured, or when responding to someone in crisis, it is really important that the police take the lead on making decisions about reopening the network.

As the hon. Member would expect, when such incidents arise, National Highways works closely with the police, identifies any damage to assets and ensures that trained personnel, equipment and materials are available to undertake repairs as soon as the scene is released. National Highways regularly meets the senior roads policing officers from Avon and Somerset police to review incidents and adjust its operational approach. I understand that more meetings are planned between the police and National Highways to look at whether more can be done to reduce the impact of closures.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. I agree that roadworks and other activities and incidents on our motorways and trunk roads need to be managed in a way that causes as little disruption as possible to road users. I encourage the hon. Member to continue to engage with National Highways on the local impacts of the closure of the M5 in Somerset. Officials from National Highways will have heard his comments today. I will reflect on what he has said this afternoon and endeavour to come back to him on some of the points he raised.

Question put and agreed to.