National Highways Maintenance and the A5036

Peter Dowd Excerpts

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.”

[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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd)—although I agree with him: it is more of a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.

Good transport connections are key to unlocking essential growth for cities, which is why I thank my hon. Friend for calling this debate. I note that this is the third debate that he has secured on the subject of the A5036; he is indeed a strong advocate for his constituents and for road users, campaigning extensively on the proposed improvements to this vital road in his constituency.

Transport links play a crucial role in supporting productivity, innovation and economic growth in cities, towns and communities. That is why the Government are determined to build a transport infrastructure to drive economic growth and opportunity in every part of the country and deliver value for money for taxpayers.

Our strategic road network is the backbone of our country’s economy: with 4,500 miles of motorways and major A roads, it connects people, builds communities, creates opportunities and helps the UK to thrive. Although it makes up only 2.4% of England’s overall road network, it is the most heavily used part, and carries a third of all traffic and two thirds of all freight. Transport is at the heart of this mission-driven Government. We will transform infrastructure to work for the whole country—to unlock growth, promote social mobility and tackle regional inequality.

The A5036 performs a number of important functions. It serves its local community as a commuter route, acts as a link for trips to and from Bootle, Maghull and Liverpool city centre and forms part of the strategic road network providing national routes to and from the port of Liverpool. My hon. Friend will be aware of the previous Government’s commitments to improve the A5036 Princess Way, and I know that he has long campaigned against the scheme, but he will also be aware that the Secretary of State has commissioned an internal review that will look at the Department’s capital projects. That review will consider the Department’s capital portfolio spending, including on road projects such as the A5036 Princess Way, and will include and inform the Department’s new long-term strategy for transport, developing a modern and integrated network with people at its heart and ensuring that transport infrastructure can be delivered efficiently and on time. He will appreciate that we are not yet able to provide assurances on any individual project at this time, but we will provide any updates once that review has concluded.

My hon. Friend raised an important point about finding a multi-modal solution that includes rail. I am aware of the commitment to find a multi-modal solution to port access and wish to acknowledge the work of the port access steering group, chaired by the Liverpool city region mayoral combined authority. He will be aware that the Liverpool city region mayoral combined authority is also consulting on its fourth draft of the local transport plan, which will include a strategy for freight and logistics. National Highways supported the city region to develop that plan, and the Department awaits its adoption with interest.

Turning to the issue of Park Lane footbridge, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the bridge was struck by a heavy goods vehicle in October 2022 and National Highways has since installed a temporary signal-controlled crossing for cyclists and pedestrians. National Highways has undertaken a review of possible solutions and determined, as he said, that a permanent signal-controlled crossing at all arms of the junction is the best solution. In considering that option, National Highways considered the need to provide safer journeys for everyone, including those with mobility issues, cyclists, and parents with pushchairs. I have heard my hon. Friend’s message on information sharing and candour loud and clear, and will of course discuss the issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is the Minister for the future of roads.

National Highways is working with Sefton council and Active Travel England to develop the scheme, which will align with other schemes, including the nearby maritime corridor active travel scheme. National Highways expects to start work on the crossing in the next financial year. This is partly due to the need to co-ordinate roadworks at Park Lane and the Atlantic gateway maritime corridor, together with safety improvements at Switch Island, along with pavement resurfacing work, which is planned for delivery in the first half of 2025-26.

[Peter Dowd]

I heard what the Minister said in relation to the footbridge—another matter that I will take up. There was massive, major consultation on the replacement of the footbridge, and for some reason National Highways chose to ditch that plan without discussing it with anybody at all. That is the concern our concern. Nobody knows why. Nobody knows what the information was based on. That is where we are at. I would ask National Highways to hold on until we can pursue this further, because what it did is absolutely outrageous.

[Simon Lightwood]

As I say, I will take that back and discuss that further with the Minister for Future of Roads. I agree that maintenance of the strategic road network is of the utmost importance. The National Highways maintenance regime is guided by the standards contained in the design manual for roads and bridges. It has a programme of maintenance activities for the A5036 planned for this year, which I can assure my hon. Friend is mostly completed now. Outstanding works on the grass and vegetation will be completed by the end of this financial year.

My hon. Friend will also be pleased to know that National Highways is currently delivering a scheme to improve safety at Switch Island. This includes average speed cameras on the M57 approach and red light enforcement at some of the traffic signals on the junction. Those vital safety improvements will be completed by the end of this financial year.

I thank my hon. Friend once again not only for securing this debate and for the important points he raises—I will raise the issues of candour and information flow with the Minister for roads—but for his continued commitment to champion the needs of his constituents. I hope he is satisfied by the response I have provided, which has made it clear that the Department recognises the vital importance of good transport links for cities, regions and the whole United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

E-scooters: Deaths and Serious Injuries

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I understand that earlier today the Prime Minister spoke to the King to request the Dissolution of Parliament ahead of a general election on 4 July. I call Barry Sheerman to wind up the debate if he so wishes.

Road Humps and 20 mph Speed Limits

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. Where to begin on this particular issue? I am glad that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) brought it before us, because while in some regard it is a very simple area to deal with, it is also a very complex area. I start from the principle of subsidiarity—namely, that the people best able to make the decision at, for example, a local government level, are the best people to make the decision at a local level: a determination by them of the needs of their community. I completely accept that should be in full consultation, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

I was chair of a highways committee when we started to introduce speed humps, bumps and tables over 25 years ago. That was because there were so many people who were sick to death of their residential areas being used as rat runs. They wanted us, the council, to do something about it, so we started that process. However, this is also part of the wider issue of, for want of a better phrase, speed awareness. Speed bumps, humps and tables are one way that we can start changing the culture of people speeding.

Only in the last few days, one of my local schools, St Oswald’s Church of England Primary School, asked me to be a judge of posters made by children in reception to cut speed; I would like to announce the winner, but I do not think the school has announced it yet. The point is that people do recognise the need to cut speed. The figures are there. Starkly, there are 1,700 deaths and 29,000 serious injuries a year on our roads. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the cost of it, but the cost on the human side is absolutely dreadful. The figures from a Statista report show costs of £3.5 billion a year. Where is that factored into this? That has to be taken into account as well.

On the issue of subsidiarity, Parliament is here to set out a framework for how we operate at local government level, for example. I do not think it is for us to tell local government and local councils what they should be doing. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is not necessarily saying that. However, it is worth pointing out that we give them the responsibility to do this, and it is also the responsibility of the electors in those areas to hold them to account and challenge them.

I welcome that challenge, as I always did as a member of the local authority, but this also has to be part of the wider traffic issue. For example, I understand that no pavement parking is permitted in London, but it is rife in my constituency. It is dangerous: people park on pavements all the time, blocking them, and obstructing elderly people and women and men with prams and wheelchairs. That is also an issue, and it is part of the whole question of traffic calming. There are issues with people parking on cycle lanes, for goodness’ sake, and blocking them—they do not care about anybody but themselves. That is not acceptable either.

In my view, the issue is all about trying to get people to understand that speed kills, whether in a pedestrian area, on a motorway, on an A road or on a B road. It is important that people understand that. Speed humps, bumps and tables—there are variations on themes—do help to control speed on roads. The evidence is there for that. They do reduce accidents, help to regulate traffic and ensure the safety of pedestrians. They are also relatively easy to construct. We know that speed humps are highly effective and important for avoiding road accidents.

If the Government, of whatever party, want more significant research into the issue, I welcome that. Neither I nor anyone else has anything whatever to fear from a full, unambiguous, substantive review of these proposals. I completely accept that that should be evidence-based and that we should learn from the evidence, but that does not detract from the fact that I do not want to tell people in any other constituency, or any Member in this room, what their local traffic-calming plans should or should not be—this should not be by diktat. Whatever assessment the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, it cannot be a way for the centre here to tell local authorities what to do—where they can or cannot put speed humps or how far apart those should or should not be. That should be a matter for local determination.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The point I was trying to make was that if local residents have concerns about what is happening to them, their houses and so on, they have no ability to benchmark what the council is determined to do. If we want local decision making—yes, absolutely—that needs to be fair and on the basis of the best evidence available so that councils can understand when these things should be applied for best effect, rather than just making arbitrary decisions based on very old measures that actually did nothing at all. The request today is for better independent inquiry into what works, what does not work and where any measures should be. That would be far better. Councils could then discuss that with their electors.

[Peter Dowd]

As I said, I do not disagree with that. I am all for it being evidence-based. There are road bumps outside my house. They do not particularly bother me, I have to say, but that is my view. I do not think they particularly bother my neighbour either. They were introduced before I moved into the house over 25 years ago, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). It was called the village entry scheme, because people in the village got sick to death of people speeding through at 60 or 70 mph. The price that we as residents pay for that, to some extent, is road humps outside our houses. If that is the way we want to dress this up, that is the consequence. The alternative consequence is people speeding through, which is more dangerous and more disruptive than the speed humps.

That is my personal perspective. It is a perspective as a Member of Parliament, as a councillor and former chair of highways, and as a resident. I want to take this in the round. I welcome the debate introduced by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green; I just hope that we deal with it in the spirit in which it is intended and, as he said, that we do not politicise it. When we start to politicise things like road humps, speed humps or pelican crossings, there lies—excuse the pun—the road to perdition.

[Robin Millar]

The hon. Gentleman makes some strong points, and subsidiarity is key to this issue. The point is that those road humps are there because of decisions, and those decisions are taken by politicians, so how does he suggest that this is not a political matter?

[Peter Dowd]

There is a difference between a political matter and a party political matter. I felt that a bit of party politicking was coming into the debate with talk about the Welsh Government, or this council or the other. I accept that it is a political decision; almost every decision we make is political, but when we make them, we have to balance them in the round.

Without repeating myself, I completely acknowledge what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said. But when we get the evidence—and we have been here many times in this place—we do not like it, so we try to ignore it. We ignore facts and we do not like experts. I exhort people: if we have a full, clear, unambiguous, independent examination of this matter, once we get the results and the evidence, in my view, it is for the local communities to have their say as part of the consultation process about when particular traffic-calming measures come into place, and whether they be 20 mph speed limits, 10 mph speed limits or whatever they might be.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate. He has made some excellent points, particularly on local decision making, which I am also concerned about. I represent a number of villages in Meon Valley that are unsuitable for high-speed traffic. Some are on the A32, which is one of the worst roads in the country for people being killed and injured, but everywhere in our villages the problems of speeding traffic are a menace to the people living, working and going to school.

I was an MP in Portsmouth when it had recently become one of the first cities to introduce 20 mph zones. The evidence very quickly showed a reduction in the number of incidents because the average speed was brought down, and the change made drivers think more carefully about their behaviour. Everywhere that has done the same has seen a similar reduction in casualty figures. I am pleased that Hampshire County Council is now looking at allowing communities and parish councils to ask for 20 mph zones. I have been calling for that for a long time and residents have been asking for help, particularly along the A32. I hope that the council will allow communities to move forward when it takes a decision in January next year.

Hampshire County Council is considering a report mostly based on conditions in Winchester, as my right hon. Friend said, and other largely built-up areas. But in our rural Meon Valley communities, things are very different. Narrow roads pass right outside people’s front doors, and in many places there are narrow or even no pavements, including on the A32. Residents feel vulnerable because of the speed of traffic. Many notice the return to high-speed traffic after covid—if anything, they saw even more of it as people returned to the countryside. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, we have to recognise, too, that the average modern car is much bigger and heavier than those in the past. Pedestrians are feeling the squeeze, and so are cyclists, horse riders and even other motorists who might not feel so confident as the drivers barrelling along a village at above 40 mph in a 30 mph zone.

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Lady will be aware that 60% of all road fatalities happen on rural roads. Would she agree that we must do something about that?

[Mrs Drummond]

Yes. That is exactly why I am so concerned, particularly about the A32. People have to walk along that road. There is no pavement and cars go very fast through villages. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

My constituents are delighted that we have recently installed average speed cameras on stretches of the A32 and the A272, which have been abused by speeding drivers for far too long. The cameras will save drivers’ lives and improve the lives of residents in the surrounding villages. They have already told me what a difference those have made.

Cutting speed saves lives. I welcome the support of the Hampshire police and crime commissioner, Donna Jones. She backed the calls that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) have made to her to fund the cameras. I will continue to support my constituents across Meon Valley who want safer roads and safer lives for their families, so I hope that Hampshire County Council will let us have the choice of having 20 mph zones in those areas where residents want them.

I also hope that Ministers will look at what the Government can do to empower people to take control of roads in their communities, including through the use of acoustic cameras and properly enforceable noise limits on motor vehicles. This has been a blight on many communities, and I hope that the pilot schemes will soon show that they work and we can roll them out across the country, but especially in Meon Valley.

Points of Order

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would appreciate any advice you can give me on a matter of great interest and concern to my constituents. It relates to the attitude of National Highways officials in the north-west office. A freedom of information request revealed several emails that, in my view, show a worrying lack of candour and transparency in National Highways’ dealings with me in relation to the replacement of a footbridge on a major road in my constituency. In particular, I have been accused of “whipping up a frenzy” among my constituents in relation to that important safety matter—I am doing my job, not whipping up a frenzy. Any advice from you would be welcome.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I certainly agree that he, or any other Member, should not be criticised for pursuing issues of concern to their constituents. The hon. Gentleman has put his concerns on the record, and I believe the Minister may wish to make a quick point.

A5036 Park Lane Footbridge Replacement

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the replacement of the A5036 Park Lane footbridge.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert. Let me say to the Minister that if he were in my position and this matter affected his constituency, he would do exactly what I am doing today; namely, proselytising for an issue that is of deep concern to my constituents.

The A5036 is the main road leading down to the port of Liverpool. It is a very busy road, with tens of thousands of vehicles going to and fro, 24 hours a day, amounting to about 40,000 vehicles a day. That is an awful lot of vehicles. At a particular point in the cycle, at around 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon, there may be something like 2,500 or 2,600 vehicles going to and fro along a stretch of about 2.5 miles. There are various junctions along that stretch and one of the main ones, which is very busy in terms of interaction with pedestrians, is the Park Lane junction with Dunnings Bridge Road, which is part of the A5036.

On the corners of that junction, we have a church, a primary school, a hotel, a social services centre and some football pitches. For as long as anyone can remember, we have had a footbridge that takes people safely from one side to the other of that major road with those thousands of vehicles, 13% of which are heavy goods vehicles. However, over the years, as such infrastructure goes, the footbridge became less robust and needed to be repaired and renewed. There was an acceptance, as far back as 2017 or perhaps earlier, that the footbridge needed to be replaced and brought up to date to meet modern standards with respect to health and safety and to accessibility for disabled people using motorised units and so on.

National Highways—it was Highways England at the time—acknowledged that really needed to be done, and it came up with three options: a “do nothing” option, a “do minimum” option and a “do something” option. I will not go into them all but, in effect, the preferred option was to provide a new footbridge. Some of the land nearby would have to be purchased, possibly via compulsory purchase, and an application went in for that. Some would be purchased from the local authority, some from a private owner and some from Our Lady of Walsingham Church—the school is directly attached to the church; the road runs directly parallel to the school and the church—and that, in effect, was agreed.

As early as 18 October 2017, a public consultation was held at Our Lady of Walsingham School, and it was agreed that the preferred solution should be option B: to replace the footbridge with a modern structure, as I described. That appears to have been what was agreed. National Highways went off and, in 2022, deposited some documents in public in relation to the compulsory purchase of the land. So as late as August or September 2022, which is less than a year ago, everything was on track. There had been some delays—surprise, surprise—because of covid. However, I and everybody in the area—the thousands of people who use the footbridge every day, including hundreds of children—were quite happy that there was going to be a replacement footbridge.

In October 2022, a lorry crashed into the bridge, which had to be closed after becoming even more dangerous and even less functional. The footbridge, which for decades—as I said, as long as anyone can remember—had been on a very busy junction for pedestrian-vehicle interaction, disappeared. There is now an opportunity: the bridge has been knocked down, so that cost has already been taken into account. Let us push on and get our new bridge. Job done—everybody will be happy. I will be happy, the school will be happy, the church will be happy, the hotel will be happy and, more importantly, the residents will be happy and their children even happier, because they will not have to cross a busy road, which is three lanes wide at points. In a way, it is serendipity that the bridge was crashed into.

Having agreed that we were going to have a new bridge, National Highways decided, after the bridge had been damaged and knocked down—potentially because of costs, but I am not absolutely sure, because the cost of replacing the bridge had already been set out in its “Statement of Reasons” report of 28 September 2021, which I have before me—that it was going to rethink whether there was an alternative method of people getting across the very busy road.

I understand that National Highways is not saying that it will not replace the footbridge, but there is a terrible suspicion, rightly or wrongly, that that is the case. I am sure the Minister will appreciate—he would appreciate it if it were in his constituency, although I am not pointing my finger at him—that people are thinking, “What’s so different now, given the massive use of the bridge?” Other junctions are less challenging, but the accident rate along that stretch of road is not the best. I could talk about the figures, but I hope the Minister will take me at my word that there have been accidents along that route for a whole variety of reasons, so everyone was perplexed by the step back from replacing the bridge.

One of the suggestions as part of the options appraisal was for a pelican crossing-type thing. Everyone was a bit concerned that, on a road of that width, that would not be practical and that it would be psychologically challenging for many people, especially children and parents with prams going to the school or coming back from church. From what I can tell from the documentation, although I am happy to be corrected, the assessment was that such a crossing would have a deleterious effect on the traffic flow—in effect, we would have a junction going four ways—given the significant number of people who need to use the junction to go to school and so forth, so a bridge would be required. That is what the options appraisal said: “Let’s have the bridge, because the alternative—a pelican crossing-type scheme—would impact the free flow of traffic.” In effect, that is what the report said. Again, the case for a new bridge is fairly compelling.

Then, lo and behold, National Highways decided that it would pull away from that and begin another consultation process, which apparently may take until the end of the year. No one has been consulted in any substantive way—I think some letters have gone out—but people have not changed their minds. It is quite clear that people locally do not want a pelican crossing across a major road.

Another piece of context is that, as the Minister knows, National Highways has consulted about a potential new road through Rimrose Valley, which would effectively replace the A5036. It is a bit more complicated than that, but in effect it would be an alternative. There is massive opposition to that, but there is obviously a recognition that the A5036 needs work doing to it in one way or another to make it more accessible to traffic, safer for pedestrians and so on, to the extent that National Highways wants to build an alternative road, which would cost the best part of £300 million and maybe £350 million, according to the latest estimates. That shows that National Highways recognises that something needs to be done.

There are all sorts of arguments about the alternatives to that, but that is not for today. Today’s debate is about a bridge across an existing very busy road—one of the busiest out there, I suspect—in an area that is full of people who would use it. For the life of me I do not know why National Highways cannot just acknowledge that it has done an assessment and an analysis, it has come up with options, and it has finalised an option—a new bridge. No one can comprehend why we are in this situation. I find it very difficult to explain why there has been a step back. I suspect that if we had not had covid, the bridge would most probably be there.

Everybody is very worried. The junction appears pretty safe, but why? Because it had a footbridge, which everybody used. People very rarely cross the road, because it is a potentially very dangerous junction. I push and push that point because the number of accidents around the junction is fairly minimal. There may be collisions between cars, but collisions with people are pretty rare. That speaks volumes—it is because people used the footbridge.

There is a compelling case for the footbridge, but now we are told that it may not be built—it will go to consultation—because it is more expensive than set out in the 2021 document, which stated:

“The approximately £3.5m scheme has been allocated £1.8m funding from the Designated Funds (Integration) and £1.7m from the Capital Structures Renewals budgets for delivery of the Works.”

It seems to me that that figure has clearly gone up. I do not know what it is now; perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me. It may have gone from £3.5 million to £4 million or £4.5 million—I do not know.

However—I say this with the best intentions—I cannot be too concerned with that at this stage. We had a bridge for decades. It was safe, people felt safe, and it gave access both ways across the main road to the school and all the other facilities. It is the best way to ensure the flow of traffic, given that 40,000 vehicles a day go through the junction and, at peak time—about 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon—about 2,500 vehicles whip back and forth across it. That is an awful lot. I did some calculations: 2,500 or 2,600 vehicles in an hour is virtually one every second. That is a vast number of vehicles going to and fro.

That is why I am quite exercised about the bridge. I cannot understand why we cannot get on with it. Everybody accepts that there should be one. People were settled that there was going to be a new footbridge. People are concerned about their children. I do not say that to frighten anyone; that is the reality. People felt safe with the bridge that had been there for so long. The new bridge has been assessed, and that was National Highways’ own plan. As far as I am aware, it has bought the land, but if it has not done so, it is available because it has gone through the process and the land is still owned by the local authority, the church and a private owner.

There is no opposition to the proposal; quite the opposite. Will the Minister please take this back to National Highways and tell it that we have had all the assessments, options appraisals and consultations we need? Do we really have to go through this again? Do we have to wait yet again, for another six, 12 or 18 months, for a decision to be made? Everyone—me, my constituents, the school, the church—will push and push, and we will not stop until the bridge is built. I hope the Minister gets the anxiety, tension and concern of residents, who want to get this matter sorted out. Everybody will be happy if we can move it on. If we do not, the unhappiness and resentment will persist. I ask the Minister to intervene and move this matter on as soon as possible for the sake of my constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. About 60% of journeys are made by car, and the car remains incredibly important, particularly in rural areas like his and mine in Gloucestershire. Almost half the Government’s budget for investing in the strategic road network is for renewing, maintaining and operating existing network, but he makes a very good point about ensuring that, as we develop communities and businesses, the road infrastructure is adequate for those developments. I have noted his point carefully and will discuss it with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in due course.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

T5. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the safety of hundreds of primary schoolchildren and parents who are unable to use the demolished footbridge at the Park Lane junction on the dangerous A5036, as a result of a lorry collision, is paramount. Will he therefore instruct National Highways to stop its bureaucratic stalling and replace it as a matter of urgency?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

I would be delighted to. I speak to National Highways on a regular basis. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s point and write to him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

Meetings are in progress, and we will look further at this strategy and how we can more rapidly roll out electric vehicle charging points across the country, including rapid charge points, which are being rolled out to our motorway service station network as well.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)]

Last week, the Chancellor delivered his autumn statement, which confirmed that the Department for Transport’s budget for the next two financial years remains unchanged. That means we will invest about £20 billion in transport infrastructure in each of the next two years and spend about £6 billion a year to maintain existing infrastructure and operate vital transport services. In the coming weeks, I will work with my ministerial team and officials to assess our portfolio of projects.

Let me say a word or two on rail strikes, which I know are of interest to many Members. I want a sustainable, thriving rail network, but with 20% of passengers not having returned following the covid pandemic, reform is vital. I urge all trade union leaders to get back around the table with employers to hammer out the detail of that reform. The Government will work to facilitate this, and to that end I will be meeting trade union leaders in the coming days.

[Peter Dowd]

I welcome the team to their places.

National Highways is planning to plough a road through the much-loved and used Rimrose valley, the only substantial green space in my very urbanised constituency, at a cost of up to £365 million—and that was before the current inflationary crisis kicked in. Perhaps the money could be better used to level up my constituency more constructively, rather than being allocated to a project that is at least 25 years out of date. So will the Department ask Highways England to scrap these plans, which are unwanted and unnecessary, and which will simply exacerbate—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You all want to get in. This is topical questions and you have to be sharp and punchy. Come on, Secretary of State, you will give an example.

Liverpool Port Access: Rimrose Valley

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Rimrose Valley and Liverpool Port Access.

It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I am pleased that I have managed to secure this debate; I have been applying for it for some months now. I did not have to bribe Mr Speaker or any of the officers—it was definitely legitimate.

This issue is a matter of considerable local interest. In fact, a number of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) are in the Public Gallery to listen to the debate. They are here representing not just themselves as individuals and friends of Rimrose Valley, but many thousands of people across my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. In short, if National Highways gets its way, it will plough a major road through Rimrose Valley, which is the only significant area of green space left in my constituency. It is a healthy lung that serves my constituents well, and National Highways should keep its hands off it. To be blunt, I think National Highways should do its job properly and produce a scheme that will achieve the goals that so many of us, including the Government, want.

It is easy for me to speak on this matter. I have in one way or another dealt with this issue about access to the port for more years than I care to mention. As a child, a significant part of the area was still in agricultural use at the eastern end, bordered on one side by the Leeds to Liverpool canal. I even remember the remains of a piggery on the site with the troughs still in place. For a child moving from back-to-back housing—very poor housing in Bootle—to an area that had green fields on the doorstep was fantastic. I reminisce, but I am making the point that we have to protect those areas of green as best as we possibly can.

I thought it best if I sought out a view from the people who have been involved in this issue perhaps not as long as I have been. In other words, I wanted a fresh perspective from others who perhaps do not have a history on this matter, as I do. Perhaps my judgment is clouded and a fresh perspective would help, so I asked a representative of the friends of Rimrose Valley for a few comments and observations, and I completely accept that other views are available. I do not decry those other perspectives, but this is a particular perspective and it is these views and observations that will inform much of what I say in the next 10 minutes or so.

Rimrose Valley is the last remaining space of its kind in a heavily urbanised and industrialised part of South Sefton—which is, in effect, north Liverpool—made up of wild and semi-wild “countryside in our community”. Given his relatively local antecedents, the Minister will be broadly aware of the geography, and I suspect he will have often been able to view the area, if only from across the Mersey at a little distance. The space is essential for community cohesion, linking families and friends for generations. I touched on that earlier when sharing my own experience. It is part of our local heritage. It provides a safe, clean and green commuter route for schoolchildren. The park is surrounded by dozens of primary and secondary schools and nurseries. It is an active travel corridor for people travelling to and from places of work. It helps to remove unnecessary car journeys, especially at peak times, and it offers a vital habitat to a huge diversity of wildlife, including protected species such as barn owls, bats, water voles and a vast array of birds and pollinators.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on behalf of his constituents. As he says, looking after wildlife is important because we know that nature needs to be supported. Under measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the Government want to remove the requirement for environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental impact assessments, which have been vital for protecting sites of local, national and international environmental importance for decades, and replace them with environmental outcome reports. However, shockingly the Government have not given any indication of how those environmental outcome reports will work on the ground. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely vital that the Government do not undermine vital existing protections for nature-rich sites, precious green spaces close to urban environments and the green belt, and that they must be held to account on that matter?

[Peter Dowd]

I agree. It is really important that we ensure that as much of our local habitat—our local green spaces—is maintained as possible. I am sure the Government recognise that, and as we go through the Committee stage for that Bill, those issues will be teased out and we will seek assurances from them about their intentions. It is crucial that we do that, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. All these matters, including transport issues and the environment, are inextricably linked.

Those areas cannot simply be relocated. A field cannot be picked up and moved somewhere else. It does not work like that, because it has taken centuries and maybe longer to get to that particular situation. Rimrose Valley is called that because Rimrose brook goes through it, and it has obviously been there for thousands of years.

Rimrose Valley also offers respite from the pollution generated by port traffic on the surrounding roads. Residents who have lived next to the port have a life expectancy of 12 years less than those who live just a mile away. South Sefton already experiences some of the worst air quality in the United Kingdom, and the road proposal would compound that and negatively impact on people’s health and wellbeing. It would shorten lives and affect children and older people disproportionately.

Rimrose Valley offers space to improve physical health, with ramblers, running clubs and football clubs all using the park and surrounding spaces regularly. It maintains a good level of fitness for people, which of course alleviates pressure on the NHS. That is another part of the inextricable link between all these issues. It offers a place to go to improve mental health. Many local doctors and support organisations now practise social prescribing as a free and natural alternative or supplement to medication, which also takes pressure off our NHS.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on such an important topic. Rimrose Valley is shared between our constituencies, and our constituents enjoy its value. He is talking about air quality and public health, and I remind him that 40,000 deaths per year are linked to poor air quality and subsequent breathing-relating illnesses. Does he agree that the Government’s own public health goals say that such issues should be tackled urgently, and that the Department for Transport, by pursuing this option of a polluting road, is at odds with the Government’s own stated policy objectives of saving lives through improving air quality?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We want to ensure that air quality is as good as it can possibly and practically be, given the set of circumstances. It is the role of us all, including the Government, to maintain that. I will touch on that later, but it is a very important point. I repeat that all these themes are inextricably linked.

Rimrose Valley was a lifeline for the thousands of people surrounding it during the covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown restrictions. It was a huge asset to the community during that time. Many homes around there do not have the luxury of a garden or a yard, so large public green spaces were essential. We all know that that is what the Victorians recognised—they certainly did in Liverpool, Birkenhead and such places. They built massive parks to ensure that people could get out, have a walk, enjoy themselves and get some respite from the places where they may have lived or the work that they may have done. There is a tradition in Britain of having large, open spaces, especially in some of the bigger cities, such as Liverpool.

Nearby communities were severed in two—I am reminiscing again—when another National Highways road, the A5036 trunk road, was built in the 1970s. Known as Princess Way, it is closer to the docks, and communities have never recovered from it. The proposed route would compound their misery, as the two roads would feed into that section of the road, splitting the community yet again. It is a case of history repeating itself, with absolutely no lessons learned or care for the potential damage caused. It is a “computer says no” approach to road planning.

The proven theory of induced demand shows that building more roads stimulates more traffic and does not necessarily tackle the underlying problems. To some extent, we have seen that locally with the bypass at Broom’s Cross, which alleviated congestion temporarily but is now another congested road at peak times. This is not about being anti-road or nimbyism; it is about ensuring that due diligence is undertaken when any project of this nature is proposed. I know that the Minister will be well aware of that, given the schemes in his own constituency.

Let us move on to the issue of the port of Liverpool, which is the elephant in the room—and it is a particularly large elephant. The port of Liverpool has been permitted an expansion, with little thought given to the infrastructure needed to support it. If there is to be an expansion, rightly or wrongly—I do not judge that at the moment; it is not for me to make that judgment—let us at least have the foresight to ensure that the environmental impact on communities is a significant factor in the design of any scheme that seeks to accommodate it. We do not want retrofitting, but if we are going to have a retrofit, it has to be proper and appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central has touched on, decades of activity have had a negative impact on surrounding communities, with increased air pollution from heavy goods vehicles and ships at the port. Additionally, the port generates noise and light pollution, which is a blight on citizens who live alongside the port. We have to mitigate that as much as possible.

Despite the port owner’s claims that it is neutral about the type of port access scheme or project, a freedom of information request submitted by campaigners reveals that the Peel Ports Group has “worked tirelessly” with National Highways in the lead-up to the project being announced. It has a vested interest. I am not criticising that, but it would perhaps be one of proposal’s bigger beneficiaries and, whether we like it or not, many people are asking how it can be right that a private company potentially gets to determine or have a massive say in how public money is spent. If there is to be a port expansion, let us make sure that an access project to the port is as environmentally friendly as practically possible. This is not about being anti-business; it is about balancing the needs of the various interested parties. That balance has not been met, and the environmental impact is being felt by the local community of thousands of people.

The road proposal conflicts with the Government’s own policies. Let us take the climate emergency as an example. The transport sector is the single biggest contributor to climate-wrecking CO₂ emissions in the UK. It is the only sector that has seen emissions go up, not down. CO₂ emissions stem from both the construction and subsequent use of roads. In my view and that of many other people, the project would be used to support port-related HGV traffic—the worst polluters on our roads—without a real assessment of alternatives that are as sustainable as they are practical.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

On that point about wider issues to do with transport funding, does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a lack of equity in transport funding across the country? I am thinking of my own patch in particular. Bradford is not included in the Northern Powerhouse Rail; we are without full station access. Does he think that this a problem throughout the nation?

[Peter Dowd]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend raises this issue. She has spoken many times on transport issues and, to be frank, she really does now what she is talking about. I may come to that issue later, and I am pleased that she has highlighted it.

The issue of pollution flies in the face of the climate emergency declaration. It is apposite that my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central has noted the public health crisis in air quality. He referred to 40,000 deaths a year and related illnesses. Public Health England has said that that needs to be tackled. Protection of green spaces is seen as vital, and the Government’s own 25-year environment plan sets out targets, yet in certain situations National Highways is, in my view, ignoring those objectives.

On levelling up, the north receives on average about seven times less expenditure per capita than the south. If the Government are serious about levelling up, they need to reflect that in projects such as this and give the community the budget it needs to do the job. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) is making.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) have both pointed out the importance of levelling up and investing in transport across the nation. Given that this is a strategically important link, should not it be done with the longer term in mind, including climate objectives and ensuring that freight can travel as effectively as possible? That means providing alternatives to roads. The problem is that if we put more lorries on the roads, we will slow down delivery times and also deliver a less effective solution to the challenge of how we move goods around the country.

[Peter Dowd]

That is a perfectly fair analysis and assessment of the current situation. The mid-range cost of the proposal would be about £250 million. That is for just less than a 5 mile route, so it works out at about £50 million a mile. In relation to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South, the lower Thames reach crossing is now estimated to cost £8.2 billion, which works out at about £364 million per mile, including a tunnel. That is over seven times the per-mile cost that National Highways plans to spend on the Rimrose Valley road. However, the Rimrose Valley tunnel option was brushed aside as too expensive.

Turning to the conduct of National Highways, to date the organisation has told people that their homes would be safe, then issued the threat of compulsory purchase orders on homes and businesses. It withheld information on the environmental impact of the scheme from the public during the first consultation, thereby making an informed decision impossible. It has created divisions between communities in selecting the options it presented to the public. It ignored the outcome of its own public consultation, often in favour of the route that had the least support. In my view, and that of many other people, National Highways misled the public, claiming that a court ruled in favour of its preferred route, when actually it did not. It ignored the needs of those living alongside Princess Way—the road I referred to earlier, which is an extension of the A5036 and part of that corridor—with absolutely no mitigation. It ignored the Government and Sefton Council’s declaration of climate emergency by promoting yet another polluting road. It gave less than two weeks’ notice for public information events and sent newsletters to our schools, so that pupils could deliver National Highways’ messages. It also refused multiple freedom of information requests on dealing with private companies.

What about support for the proposal? The local authority, myself, and my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, strongly opposed the scheme. Recently, Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram called for better alternatives to be explored—we have all called for that. The council had a judicial review in 2008 and has not ruled out further legal action.

Public opposition—the “Save Rimrose Valley” campaign—is backed by thousands of local citizens demanding a better outcome. The amount of people involved is remarkable. There are effectively festivals—thousands of people coming to Rimrose Valley—organised by Rimrose Valley Friends. I pay tribute to the hard work of those people. The campaign is backed other leading organisations, including Friends of the Earth, Wildlife Trusts, CPRE, the countryside charity, and Transport Action Network. The campaign is calling for the road proposal to be cancelled with immediate effect and for non-road sustainable solutions to the movement of goods in and out of the port of Liverpool, removing as many HGVs as possible from the existing road. That includes investment in rail freight, which goes to and from the port but is pretty negligible in the grand order of things. Of course, Network Rail has not even been missing in action; it has just been missing in this situation.

Pursuing the innovative solutions in the Sefton Council and Arup report is an option. It says not, “This, that or the other should happen,” but, “Here are the options; let’s properly explore those options.” Public health and wellbeing should be paramount in all local, regional and national transport and infrastructure decisions affecting our communities. I know the Minister acknowledges that.

The campaign calls for action to address the climate emergency, with all transport investment in Sefton contributing to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to help reach the Government’s own legal targets. The implementation of bold transport policies across Sefton and the wider city region, including proper investment in active travel and clean and affordable public transport, is called for.

The port of Liverpool is part of the make-up of the community. It exists. That cannot be ignored; it will not go away. It is a player alongside other players that are part of that Mersey Maritime group, as is the community. It is a symbiotic relationship and a partnership. It is not one telling the other what to do. I hope those players take part in that community and partnership effort on this project.

After all, the needs of people in the community are just as important as the needs of any company. Rimrose Valley, and other green spaces in our region, need to be protected from future developments that damage the integrity of our environment. The people of the communities along that corridor need to be assured that the price of port expansion will be paid. The people along the Church Road route, who have suffered for many years, need some succour—they need help and assistance. Building an alternative road in the valley is not the answer.

If that needs more mileage investment, so to speak—on the equivalent scale of the lower Thames reach, which I referred to before; Crossrail, which cost the best part of £260 million a mile; Crossrail 2, with a proposed £530 million a mile, although it might be more; the Stonehenge tunnel at £1.7 billion for just 2.5 miles, or £680 million a mile—so be it. I do not object to any of those projects. Other people might, but I do not. Those projects were important for those areas and they deserve that level of funding. My community is entitled, as is every other community, to a fair share of the transport budget.

In conclusion, we do not want a second-rate solution to a problem not of our community’s making. We want a first-class response to our real concerns, and I hope that the Minister, who I know takes these issues seriously, will give us that response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I have heard and noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I will talk about the relationship—perhaps the non-relationship—with National Highways shortly. His intervention was longer than I expected, but I have taken on board all the points he made. I expect that in the future there will be ongoing dialogue with the Department and the hon. Gentleman and other local MPs.

Since 2010, more than £33 billion has been invested in transport infrastructure in the north, but our ambition is to go further and faster, regardless of recent pressures, especially as we focus relentlessly on the economic wellbeing of our cities, regions and nation, as that brings jobs, wealth and social mobility to all who wish to enjoy the fruits of their own labours. The integrated rail plan is the biggest ever single investment in Britain’s rail network—a £96 billion strategy of rail construction and upgrades for the midlands and the north to be delivered over the next 30 years. The IRP focuses on bringing communities in the north and midlands ever closer together, boosting inter-city connections and improving east-west links in particular. These are journeys people are most likely to make, and, as I learned on my recent visit to Immingham, these links are of the utmost importance to freight and access to the western port of Liverpool.

We have announced the first allocations from the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, regenerating towns and high streets and investing in the infrastructure that people need, including transport. As the hon. Member for Bootle undoubtedly knows, also included is £37.5 million for the Liverpool city region’s levelling up for recovery proposals, which will deliver a range of transport interventions to support connectivity and economic growth in and across Liverpool city centre, the maritime gateway in Sefton and over the water in Birkenhead, which as he rightly said is my place of birth—he and some of his constituents would probably call me a plastic scouser. This funding will enhance connectivity between employment centres such as Atlantic Park along the A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road.

This Government are also spending over £24 billion between 2020 and 2025 on our strategic road network. The core principle of our road investment strategy is to create a road network that is safe, reliable and efficient for everyone, and that sets a long-term strategic vision. Our first priority is to fix existing strategic roads, ensuring that they are well designed, well maintained and well connected, and will serve all road users well into the future. Where existing roads are simply not up to the job the country asks them to perform, we will ask National Highways to look at the potential to develop wider realigned or, in a few cases, wholly new roads to keep people and goods moving.

Transport connectivity is not just a local and regional issue; it is important for the whole United Kingdom. Transport for the North itself recently noted the importance of the port of Liverpool, whose Liverpool2 deepwater container terminal reflects the aspiration of the region to increase its freight potential—an aspiration we have supported through its recent designation as a freeport. TfN also noted that areas of investment with significant freight benefits will include access to constrained ports—for example, the A5036 to the port of Liverpool.

The hon. Member for Bootle will be aware of our commitment to the improvement of the A5036 Princess Way, which is the critical link between the port of Liverpool and the motorway network. Solutions to address some of the challenges on the route are key to unlocking the potential of the port and the wider city region, including its ambitious freeport proposals. These improvements will provide better links and improve the resilience of the network while boosting business productivity and economic growth by providing a more reliable road network and improved local access. The objectives of the scheme go beyond port access; the scheme aims to improve journey times, reliability, quality and safety, to reduce the nuisance caused by noise and dust to those living alongside the existing route, and to reduce the severance of communities living alongside the existing route.

As the hon. Member for Bootle will know, the A5036 performs a number of important functions. It serves primarily, I am led to believe, as a local community and commuter route; it acts as a link for trips to and from Bootle, Maghull and Liverpool city centre; and it forms part of the strategic road network providing national routes to and from the port of Liverpool.

However, this scheme was included in the first road investment strategy and subsequent second road investment strategy because the route is among the worst nationally for congestion and unreliability, with high numbers of road traffic accidents that disproportionately affect vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. If nothing is done, these conditions will only worsen as traffic levels increase, with anticipated growth locally and through the port itself, which is critical to the economy of the north and the wider UK. For all those reasons, the A5036 Princess Way scheme in the port of Liverpool was developed. The scheme aims to build a new road between the M57 and M58 and the port of Liverpool to replace the current substandard route.

I acknowledge the strong views of the hon. Member for Bootle on the proposal for the new road through Rimrose Valley, but I reassure him that National Highways is aware that there is a range of opinions and concerns about its proposals for the A5036. I am reliably informed that it is committed to working with all stakeholders to achieve the right result for the city region and the country. The hon. Gentleman’s former colleagues should be mindful of that olive branch and the hand of friendship, or partnership working, which some in the north-west and the city of Liverpool are famous for.

[Peter Dowd]

On the point the Minister makes about National Highways, the concern we have is that no alternatives to this scheme are being significantly or substantially considered. It is not a question of saying that we are just against the road and the port access; we are asking whether we can have a dialogue and potentially expand the modality of the transport link, rather than it just being about a road, take it or leave it, two or three metres either side of a line.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Later in my remarks, I will come on to some information that may be helpful to him and hopefully will spur him on.

The current proposal for the new road comes with a full commitment to measures to mitigate its impacts through Rimrose Valley and to enhancing the environmental and amenity value of the current park and the open area of land north of the park. We in the Department for Transport and our agencies are fully cognisant of the issues and we recognise the need to fix negative impacts on the environment, which matter greatly to local people.

I am aware of the commitment to find a multi-modal solution to port access and acknowledge the work by the port access steering group, chaired by the Liverpool city region mayoral combined authority. In addition to planned investment on the strategic road network, there has been investment in the Bootle branch line to support increased rail access to the port.

The hon. Member for Bootle will no doubt be aware that the Liverpool city region mayoral combined authority is developing its fourth local transport plan, which will include a strategy for freight and logistics. National Highways is helping the city region to develop this plan, and the Department is awaiting the outcome with interest and will take the proposals into consideration as the scheme develops.

At this point, I urge the hon. Member for Bootle to never give up, but to be prepared to compromise and negotiate. Throwing one’s toys out of the pram or taking the ball away like a spoilt child assists no one and is not a serious negotiating strategy in a professional setting in the 21st century. It may play well in the local watering holes and Labour social clubs, but it risks parts of the great city of Liverpool being left behind.

My example for the hon. Gentleman is one of personal endeavour and the willingness to achieve remarkable solutions in the face of negativity and naysayers. Between 2004 and 2012, I was told that Lincoln eastern bypass was a non-starter. It had been talked about since 1916 and I was told it would never happen, and that the transformation of the city of Lincoln, with reduced congestion, improved travel times and environmental benefits, was pie in the sky.

In December 2020, I was proud to be asked to open the—albeit single carriageway—eastern bypass. It is not in my constituency, but around it, and it is of great benefit to the vast majority of my constituents and provides environmental improvements to the very centre of our city of Lincoln. That has led to an affectionate nickname for the bypass, which is known locally as McCartney Way by some. I am not sure if the new road or even tunnel that the hon. Member for Bootle seeks would be more aptly named Princess Way mark 2 or the Dowd Underpass, or perhaps he has other middle names we are not aware of that might lend themselves to such a project. I digress.

A feasibility study into the provision of electric vehicle charging points in the vicinity of the scheme has been carried out by National Highways. The project team is interested in developing that and other opportunities to promote a more sustainable transport solution, potentially in partnership with the Liverpool freeport team and the Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram, formerly of this parish, with whom I had a very cordial meeting over the summer.

I firmly believe that good transport infrastructure is a catalyst for enterprise and growth and that better connectivity means greater economic opportunity, with all the benefits that brings to communities and individuals of all ages. That belief has driven my actions over the years in my constituency of Lincoln, and I have promoted it across the country since being appointed a Minister in early July this year.

I reaffirm my thanks to the colleagues who have spoken and whose points have been taken on board: the hon. Members for Bootle, for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East. I have listened carefully to all they have said, and have taken note of the points they have made, particularly on the green lung issue. I thank them for this very insightful debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Bootle is satisfied with the response I have provided, which promotes good transport links for cities and regions, and makes clear that the Department recognises the vital importance of such improvements for local residents and business concerns, as well as for the economic wellbeing of the whole United Kingdom—this Minister recognises it doubly so, through a plethora of local examples, as I have tried to elucidate in my myriad remarks today.

[Peter Dowd]

I appreciate the response from the Minister. I thank my colleague on the Labour Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane); my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson); and my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for their interventions.

I will finish on this point, which I want to reaffirm: we have a road, and that is the only solution so far. We need alternatives to be discussed and teased out, not to be told, “This is the only option.” It is almost a Henry Ford, “You can have any car you want, as long as it is black.”

I am told by Mersey Maritime that this industry is worth £5 billion to the Liverpool city region economy and supports 48,000 jobs; it has a direct impact of £706 million, supporting 8,527 jobs, or 4% of jobs in the maritime sector nationally; and so on, and so on. It is a big economy. What we need are transport links that reflect that growing economy and the growing need in the area. Simply bunging a road through Rimrose Valley is not going to achieve the growth that the Government want, nor the environmental impact that we and the Government want, nor anything else for that matter. This is a “take it or leave it” project and we are not prepared just to take it—we want to have a discussion about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Rimrose Valley and Liverpool Port Access.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Labour Members constantly call on me to enter into direct negotiations with the unions. They may be able to tell us whether the Mayor of London has done the same thing with the RMT strikes. If he has, it has not worked. If he has not, why are they not calling on him to do that?

To add to my hon. Friend’s lengthy list of problems, I got a letter yesterday from the monitoring officer at the Greater London Authority, who says that she will be referring to the formal complaints process guidance as a result of the Mayor’s releasing information about both the Elizabeth line and TfL in advance of the markets.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

T2.   Transport remains the UK’s biggest generator of climate-wrecking carbon dioxide emissions. Road construction and the traffic that those roads support represents a large proportion of that. Does the Secretary of State agree, therefore, that rather than pursuing an outdated, destructive road project such as the Rimrose Valley Port of Liverpool access scheme in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), a complete rethink is needed and that imaginative, innovative and sustainable infrastructure is the only credible way forward in the face of a climate emergency?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)]

The hon. Member makes a particularly important point, which is exactly why we are investing £577 million in research and development, more than half of which is on decarbonisation of transport, including programmes such as ADEPT live labs where we look specifically at how we can reduce carbon emissions from bituminous materials and road making provisions.

Draft Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 General Committees

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Robertson.

As a former local authority member—indeed, I was the leader of a council and the chair of highways many years ago, when we had what was called the decriminalisation of on-street parking offences—I have a bit of experience of introducing systems and processes that inevitably led to many fines for people who took an insouciant or nonchalant attitude towards parking when it was not appropriate to do so; indeed, when it was dangerous to do so. We all agree on that.

I therefore welcome today’s proposals, but it would be remiss of me not to mention, as colleagues have done, the implication in the explanatory memorandum that they will not be too much of a burden on local authorities. The proposals may well be a burden for local authorities. My local authority has faced £230 million of cuts from the Government in the last few years. Local authorities are straining at the sinews when trying to provide services, so I do not want to underestimate the challenge the proposals might bring them.

I do not think local authorities implement such proposals as cash generators—certainly, my local authority and those I have been involved with do not. As with on-street car parking, the money goes back into the transport budget. When I was the leader of a council, I certainly never said, “Can we squeeze more out of the fines?” when drawing up a budget. It just does not work like that on the ground. I am glad the Minister refers to the documentation that says that local authorities should not do that, but in my experience they tend not to do it in any event.

Paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum refers to police forces being under strain. Of course they are under strain—20,000 police officers have been cut in the past 10 years. Numbers have now gone up 13,700—I think that is what the Prime Minister said—but they are still 7,000 or 8,000 short of where they were in 2010. That belies the fact that local authorities are also under pressure. It is no good transferring the problem to local authorities simply because the police are under pressure. We have to sort out both problems.

I agree with the point about consultation, but everybody always agrees with such proposals in the abstract. Of course, when people get a fine for something, often they no longer like the idea. I would like to see discretion, so that the regime is as sympathetic to people as possible. Nevertheless, we have to recognise that people will contravene these regulations. If we want the regulations, which people do, there have to be certain consequences that, frankly, we might not like on an individual basis. We have to be as careful and as sympathetic as possible in enforcing them, but people cannot just use any excuse to not pay the fine they should be paying.

I am glad the explanatory memorandum mentions that the regulations do not relate to the European Union. I am pleased about that, because it is two years since we were in the EU. I am surprised that that is even in the document.

I broadly welcome the proposals, but I recognise, as the Minister said, that some road layouts may need to change significantly. Local authorities do not have the resource to do that at the minute. It is no good the Minister sharing road layout changes in advance when the local authorities do not have the money to make them. Perhaps the Government should consider giving local authorities that take on such responsibilities the capital investment that they need up front. They could do their own layout and then get the money from the fines, which would go into that pot. Perhaps the Government should give that careful consideration.

On the whole, I welcome the proposals. I am sure that by working with our colleagues on councils, local MPs will monitor the impact on our constituents as time goes by, and on specific individual situations and topographies in our constituencies.