Essex Highways Funding

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding for highways in Essex.

I am delighted to be granted this debate and pleased to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I welcome the Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), to her role. She and I have already been in correspondence about a range of highways issues—there will be a big file on me in her Department, no doubt about it. I look forward to not just this debate but future ones, because Essex is always at the forefront of making the case for infrastructure investment schemes.

It is important for the Minister to be aware of the strategic and economic importance of the great county of Essex. It is a county of entrepreneurs and an engine of economic growth for the whole country. I have made the point consistently for 14 years in this House that we are net contributors to the Treasury. We have a gross value added of more than £40 billion and 75,000 businesses supporting more than 700,000 jobs. We have key ports and airports in Essex, and I have spent near enough over a decade supporting them, being an advocate for them and helping them on business cases, including for inward investment. I am very proud of that work, and we as a county and a country should be grateful to the many firms involved for the investment that they bring.

As the Minister will be aware, Stansted airport is the third or fourth largest and busiest passenger airport in the country, with around 28 million passengers a year. It is also the second largest cargo airport and I pay tribute to it. The Minister will no doubt have seen the Government’s press release about the £1.1 billion investment to support the expansion of Stansted to accommodate around 43 million passengers a year. I appreciate that there was that press release on Monday, but I have been working with Stansted on its plans: the scale of the investment was actually announced and widely published last year, when the planning process was completed. I also supported Stansted on that. I look forward to the implementation of the plans. They are really important, and Stansted is an incredible airport. I have been supporting and championing investment in and new routes for Stansted since 2010.

We also have Southend airport and various ports, supporting and facilitating international trade: Harwich, Tilbury and DP World London Gateway. I have spent over a decade working with friends and colleagues at DP World. I will continue to support them; my relationship with them goes way back in terms of supporting their business and investment case. As with Stansted, we had the announcement this week from DP World, much of which was already in train.

How can I put this politely? I am very conscious of the sensitivities of some Secretaries of State, namely the Transport Secretary and the deputy Prime Minister, that led at the end of last week to some of the more negative responses from businesses such as DP World. Those businesses are important investors in the United Kingdom and we should never undermine them. They are the ones that have brought capital investment, as well as jobs and growth, to our great county and our country.

Of course, the reason why those companies locate to Essex is its close proximity to London and everything else that that brings. We have Felixstowe to the north, in Suffolk, and of course Dover in Kent. All these ports are significant to the health and economic wellbeing of the whole United Kingdom, as well as London and the south-east. The containerised goods that they bring in are moved through our region, the east of England, and through Essex in particular. We are a buoyant hub for international trade.

Consequently, businesses and investors know that, because of our favourable strategic location, Essex is a place to do business. However, for significant economic growth, new investment and further job creation— I never tire of speaking about Essex and the economic dynamics of our county—the strategic road network must be supported. I want to touch on a few particular schemes. One of the most pressing road investment schemes is the widening of the A12 between junction 19 at the Boreham interchange and junction 25 at Marks Tey. I have no doubt that the Minister has been briefed extensively about the background to the scheme, but it has a long history. I know that this is only a short debate, so I will just summarise that history.

Back in 2014, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a commitment to fund the widening of the A12 scheme to improve safety and, importantly, to reduce congestion, to enhance our region’s economic growth and capability. The scheme was well under way and being developed. As part of their local plan processes, local planning authorities were considering a garden community. That had an impact on the entire scheme; actually, it delayed it. Not just one local authority was involved, but two, and their political composition was mixed. Until those planning processes were resolved, the development consent order application could not be submitted. If those planning issues had not come up, the scheme would have been built and completed by now, which was always the intention. However, despite those delays, Ministers in the previous Government were always consistent and firmly committed to the scheme. Investment plans were already laid and pretty much there.

The Minister will also know that we had a legal challenge; indeed, she wrote to me about that over the summer. It came from an environmental activist, who basically brought greater delay to the scheme, but the challenge was dismissed by the courts this summer. Of course, the general election also delayed and postponed further development. The Minister wrote to me on 2 August; I have her letter with me today. She said:

“The Secretary of State has commissioned an internal review of the capital spend of DfT’s capital spend portfolio. This review will bring in external experience and move quickly to make recommendations about current and future schemes.”

I asked for more details about the review, undertaking, costs, assessment criteria and timetable, and received a response on 24 September. It stated:

“The Department is not currently able to provide the information you have requested.”

That concerns me, and it concerns us in Essex, primarily because of the long history of this road, extensive work that has taken place and large amount of public money that has been committed to the work, consultations and studies.

We need this scheme. If we are going to have more housing, planning, growth and development, which we support, then all this needs to come together. We do not want any delay or scrapping that leads to greater cost, or even to other schemes going back to the drawing board.

I have been engaging with the Department and National Highways, and I should add that the scheme is widely supported by communities, local residents and businesses across the region. I am pretty certain that the Secretary of State has recently received a cross-party letter supporting the scheme and encouraging the Department to get on with it, signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale); my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin); the newly elected hon. Members for Colchester (Pam Cox) and for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman); the former Member of Colchester, who is now the chair of Transport East; Essex county council; Braintree district council; Colchester city council; Chelmsford city council; and Maldon district council. We are all united, because we recognise the long-term benefits of the scheme. Can the Minister at least confirm whether her Department is championing it?

The road is currently being patched up in places. Because of the lack of investment over decades, National Highways is working on refreshes on some parts of the route. The scheme is, to coin a phrase with which the Minister will be familiar, shovel-ready. In the light of some of the re-announcements around DP World and Stansted, it will obviously bring great benefit.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

Many houses could be threatened and not delivered at all if the scheme does not come forward. As the right hon. Lady just mentioned, I fully support the A12 widening scheme. I have spoken to local developers who say that if the scheme did not go ahead, that could threaten the development of 55,000 houses in the area—a very large number. That is how important the scheme is.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Mid-Essex has been growing for decades. We support that growth, but with it we have to have the infrastructure investment. She will be familiar with the Army and Navy road and all the other trials and tribulations we have had with our infrastructure. The expansion of the Boreham junction is also pivotal to her constituency, which neighbours mine. We need this scheme to come together.

The other scheme that the Department is more than familiar with is the A120 dualling scheme between Braintree and the A12, which the previous Government were committed to. This is all about the connectivity—the arteries, as we call them—that will get traffic moving. The current single carriageway stretch of the road between Braintree and Marks Tey is not fit for purpose, and has been listed as one of the most dangerous roads in England. Prior to 2010, the previous Labour Government were looking at developing the scheme, and since my election in 2010 I have been a consistent advocate and campaigner for it. We even secured funding from the previous Government to undertake the feasibility study. So much work has gone into that, and I commend everyone who worked on it.

That work led to a favoured route option: to dual the A120 and integrate it into the A12 widening scheme. We have therefore always made the case that the two schemes should be coterminous and linked together. That announcement was made in 2018. The route option would ease traffic congestion and take traffic away from villages that have been literally gridlocked, such as Coggeshall. Importantly, it would also improve road safety and boost economic growth, which is crucial to our region and this part of mid-Essex.

There are strong and compelling business cases. I have no doubt that the Minister has been briefed on the issue and had conversations with National Highways, which has adopted the scheme. National Highways built on the work undertaken by Essex county council, and the scheme was therefore included in the future road investment strategy pipeline. As we know, pipelines and schemes have been moved around, but previous Ministers continued to support the scheme.

We are now concerned about the future of that scheme. Will the Minister commit to work with us on the dualling of the A120 and to look at providing the funding for it? I appreciate that fiscal events are coming up and there are various processes of capital allocation. That road scheme is linked to the development of the A12 and the integration there, so I would welcome an update from the Minister.

There are a few other local roads that I would like to touch on. Essex county council’s outstanding leader, Councillor Kevin Bentley, is to be commended for managing to put greater resources into Essex Highways, including £37 million for highways maintenance. It makes a difference not only to fixing the infamous potholes that plague our roads across the country, but to road resurfacing and the management of assets such as the many bridges over the A12. With our extensive road network—one of the largest in the country—that funding needs to be maintained and sustained. Essex county council maintains more than 5,000 miles of roads; to put it in context, that is the distance from Witham to Gibraltar and then back to Witham and back to Gibraltar again, believe it or not. We also have more than 128,000 street lighting columns, more than 1,500 highway structures and a 4,000-mile footway network to maintain. It really adds up—it brings a new meaning to asset management.

The previous Government committed an extra £121 million to Essex through to 2034. The Minister will know that that money was originally from the High Speed 2 project; the last Government were very transparent about that. In her response, will she speak about funding in that area?

On 11 October, in answer to my written parliamentary question, the Minister stated:

“We will provide authorities with funding to help them fix up to one million more potholes across England in each year of this parliament.”

Can the Minister confirm whether that funding goes above and beyond the funds announced by the previous Government? Can she give an indication how much of that resource will be provided to Essex county council? I recognise that she cannot get into specifics, but even an illustration would be helpful.

I also understand from page 129 of the Labour party manifesto that that commitment will be funded by deferring the £320 million A27 Arundel bypass scheme, freeing up £65 million a year. However, in the “Fixing the foundations” paper, which was published at the end of July and presented by the Chancellor to Parliament, the Treasury announced that the A27 scheme was being cancelled but gave no indication of those funds being diverted to local potholes or road maintenance. Some clarification from the Minister would be greatly helpful, as she announced a commitment in that parliamentary answer.

I am sure the Minister is well and truly briefed on the lower Thames crossing scheme, a significant scheme that we have been championing for a while now. The decision to defer the scheme has caused frustration and confusion, particularly for businesses. The scheme will unlock billions of pounds of growth, as I know the Minister is aware, as well as housing and jobs along the Thames estuary and beyond. It will increase capacity, thereby easing congestion on the infamous Dartford crossing, where a battle has been under way for many years since the toll booths were removed. The fact of the matter is that our roads are busy. Businesses need certainty to invest, which is why the routeing scheme is important. We want to see a revolution in skills, job development and apprenticeships, and the scheme will help local SMEs. I would be very grateful for any comment the Minister can make.

We also have the A127 corridor, on which I know Essex county council will be making representations, and work is being done in Chelmsford on the Army and Navy sustainable transport package. These are important areas on which I would like responses from the Minister.

Essex has benefited from new investment in highways in recent years. We are a very buoyant county: we stand up and get on, and we are net contributors to the Treasury. We had a strong focus from the previous Government on bringing forward key strategic schemes to boost investment, jobs and growth. I look to the Minister, at this early stage in her ministerial role, to respond to my questions and maintain a commitment to dialogue in these areas. We will be back in this Chamber for more debates, and I will be glad to bring representatives from Essex to meet the Minister and her officials and discuss these schemes further.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing today’s debate on funding for Essex Highways; I thank her for the many points she made and questions she asked. I am not sure that I will be able to answer them all to her satisfaction, but I remain open to a continuing dialogue. Having read her correspondence on these issues over the past three months, I know that she is a long-standing campaigner for investment in transport infrastructure, both in her constituency and across Essex. She is rightly proud of the contribution that her county makes to the UK economy and its strong international trading links.

Rebuilding Britain means modernising our transport infrastructure. As the right hon. Lady recognises, our road network is plagued by long-promised projects that have not been delivered. The potholes cratering our roads are a very visible sign of decline. This Government will maintain and renew our road network and ensure that it serves all users, remains safe and tackles congestion. I know that that is what her constituents and businesses want.

However, the financial inheritance that this Government have received is extremely challenging. The previous Administration left us a £22 billion public spending gap in this year alone, of which £2.9 billion is unfunded transport commitments. Those are things that were promised to which there was no funding stream attached. I can see that communities up and down the country have been given hope for new transport infrastructure, where there were no plans or funds to deliver them. I say here today that this Government will not make that mistake. We have to rebuild our economic foundations while restoring transparency and public trust.

[Priti Patel]

If I may respectfully say so, we are not here to do partisan politics. Importantly, these schemes were funded by the previous Government. They have been under development for more than 10 years. They are subject to planning and, effectively, judicial review, particularly on the A12. It is not good enough to say that there is a black hole. Within the Department, these schemes were funded. There was investment, and these schemes are shovel-ready.

The question is what is going to happen to these future schemes. If the Government want to cancel them, they should just tell us that they will be cancelled. The reality is that all the work has been done in the Department. I say respectfully that it would be really useful, although it might not happen today, to get a proper update on the status of the A12 and A120 projects, even from officials.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My point was to set out the context within which I will comment on some of the specifics that the right hon. Lady asks about. Looking across the Department at the commitments the previous Government made on roads and rail, there were undoubtedly over-commitments. Promises were given that could not be fulfilled. That is why we are having to look again, and it is why on 30 July the Secretary of State for Transport said that she was commissioning a review of the Department’s capital spend portfolio. That review, which will look across the totality of our capital schemes on rail and road, will support the development of our new long-term strategy for transport: developing a modern and integrated network with people at its heart, ensuring that transport infrastructure can be delivered efficiently and on time.

Measured by length, local roads form the majority of our country’s road network. This Government take the condition of local roads very seriously and are committed to maintaining and renewing the local road network. The Department allocates funding, which is not ringfenced, to local highways authorities so that they can prioritise spend based on their local knowledge and circumstances.

The Department for Transport will provide Essex county council with £34.5 million during the 2024-25 financial year to enable it to carry out its maintenance responsibilities for local roads in the area. I would love to be able to give the right hon. Lady a commitment, but funding for future years is a matter for the spending review, as she knows. However, I understand the importance of ensuring that local roads are well maintained.

In addition, we will provide local authorities with funding to help them to fix up to 1 million additional potholes across England in each year of this Parliament; we have made that commitment. My officials are in regular contact with the council to help it to develop and manage its schemes within the major road network and large local majors programme. The Department is currently assessing the full business case for the A127/A130 Fairglen interchange scheme and is reviewing the strategic outline case for the A127 corridor improvements, on which we have asked for further information to help with our assessment. We also stand ready to provide assistance, as and when needed, as the council develops a full business case for the Army and Navy sustainable transport package. Of course, all future decisions on the major road network schemes are subject to the current spending review and the Department’s capital review.

The strategic road network of our motorways and main A roads encompasses the roads that are most important for people to get around the country. Within the east of England, the A12 is one of the busiest roads and provides the strategic road network with its main south-west/north-east road through Essex and Suffolk, connecting Ipswich and places in the right hon. Lady’s constituency to London and the M25. It provides a strategic connection for the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe and nearby Stansted airport, which is important for both passengers and freight, as she says.

The section between the Boreham interchange in Chelmsford at junction 19 and the Marks Tey interchange at junction 25 carries high volumes of traffic, with up to 90,000 vehicles every day. Because of the important freight connections, especially to Felixstowe and Harwich, heavy goods vehicles make up between 9% and 12% of the traffic on this section—almost double the national figure of 5% on most routes. That section of the A12 is also an important commuter route, so I understand why the right hon. Lady is so passionate about the improvements that she seeks.

The resulting congestion leads to delays and means that a driver’s average speed during the morning commute is particularly slow in both directions for a dual-carriageway A road of its kind. To tackle that, the A12 Chelmsford to A120 road improvement scheme was announced in the second road investment strategy published in March 2020. The scheme proposes to widen the A12 to three lanes between junction 19 north of Chelmsford and the junction 25 A120 interchange with the aim of improving safety, reducing congestion and providing safer alternative routes away from the A12 for cyclists, walkers and horse riders.

I recognise the level of support for this scheme and its importance to the right hon. Lady’s constituents and those of her colleagues. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) rightly highlighted her own concerns. However, as I noted earlier, the financial inheritance that the Government have received is extremely challenging. The A12 Chelmsford to A120 scheme alongside other future road projects is being considered as part of the Department’s capital review, which will inform the upcoming spending review. As the right hon. Member for Witham knows, major investment decisions are a matter for the spending review, and at this stage I am not in a position to give assurances about individual schemes. I know that that is frustrating for her—it is somewhat frustrating for me—but I do understand the arguments that she puts forward.

The A120 is also an important strategic route in the east of England. Commuters, freight, residents and businesses currently suffer daily lengthy delays on this single-carriageway road. Proposals for improving this stretch of road were initially developed by Essex county council, and a scheme to improve the A120 between Braintree and the A12 was identified in the second road investment strategy as part of a pipeline of schemes considered for possible delivery in the third road investment strategy. However, in March 2023, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that, owing to financial headwinds, schemes originally earmarked as potential candidates for the third road investment strategy would be considered for inclusion in the fourth road investment strategy, which is beyond 2030. I know that that will not have been welcome news; nevertheless, those schemes remain in development for possible future funding.

The right hon. Lady touched on issues around the lower Thames crossing, but as there is a live planning application, she will know that it would not be appropriate for me to comment. The deadline for the decision has been extended to allow time for the application to be considered further, including any decisions made as part of the upcoming spending review.

Despite the difficult financial inheritance, I can assure the right hon. Member and her colleagues that my Department is committed to putting transport at the heart of mission-driven government. As she understands, growth is vital. Transport is a vital enabler, not just for growth but for our wider ambitions, including health, road safety and better links. I am determined that we will build transport infrastructure that drives economic growth, improves opportunities in every part of the country and delivers value for money for taxpayers. I am sure that I have the right hon. Member’s support in that ambition, which requires a fundamental reset in how we approach capital projects. We need public trust, industry confidence and Government integrity at the heart of it; we do not want to make promises that we cannot keep.

I thank the right hon. Member again for securing this debate. As she recognises, transport is a vital enabler of jobs, housing and opportunities for growth. I am sure that we share the desire to see those things for Witham, for Essex and indeed for the whole country.

Question put and agreed to.