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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I will happily write to the hon. Lady and the Langport Transport Group so that they have a response, if they feel that that is outstanding. The Prime Minister has committed to ensure that the Network North money made available from the cancellation of High Speed 2 is spent where HS2 would have been delivered. That mostly includes the north and the midlands, but there will be other projects in the rest of the country through the recycling of the funding from Euston.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

T7. The Secretary of State is well aware of the A12 widening scheme, and the concerns of my constituents about the route and design. They are trying to engage with the Department and National Highways, but a one-person legal challenge is putting the entire project at risk, despite the Government’s financial investment. Will the Secretary of State assure me that those communities will be consulted and engaged with despite the legal challenge, so that we can make progress?

[Mr Harper]

I assure my right hon. Friend that National Highways works closely with local communities when delivering major projects, and it will continue to do so on the A12 widening scheme. My Department is committed to delivering the scheme, and granted consent for it on 12 January but, as she said, it is subject to an application for judicial review. I therefore cannot add anything further, but I will continue to work with her local residents. If at any time she wants to raise issues with the scheme with me, I will be delighted to meet her.

Zero-emission Vehicles, Drivers and HS2

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of our view on public transport. First, we have already put in a significant amount of extra money this year and, from the savings, still more is going into our bus system. Our £2 bus fare cap is making it much easier and cheaper for people to use public transport. Twice as many journeys are made by bus than by rail. She should also know that HS2 spending was crowding out other important investments. One of the things we are now able to fund is the £600 million project at Ely junction that will increase capacity for both passengers and freight to the important port of Felixstowe.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has just mentioned Ely junction, and he will know that the great eastern main line taskforce has assiduously campaigned for that investment for over a decade. I am grateful for this announcement, and we look forward to seeing the proposal go forward. Alongside rail, which is huge in the east of England, can my right hon. Friend bring his long-term plan for motorists to Essex by bringing forward the dualling of the A120? That scheme has been delayed for another two years because of construction inflation, which I completely understand. I implore him to look at the business case and see what the scheme would mean for the economic wellbeing of mid-Essex.

Railway Ticket Offices

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

My constituents, rail user groups and I are absolutely flabbergasted by these proposals. We are frustrated and deeply angry. It is fair to say that the way in which the consultation has been handled is suboptimal. Three weeks would never have been long enough and that has undermined a lot of public confidence.

Five railway stations in my constituency will be affected by the plans, four of which are on the great eastern main line. My constituency is proudly in the middle of Essex. We are growing; we have more commuters across villages such as Hatfield Peverel, Kelvedon and Witham town. I use Witham railway station myself. I buy my tickets in the ticket office; I am proud of the staff there and the service that they offer. The point is that we rely on rail services as a commuter constituency in the heart of Essex. We feel safer and more reassured by the outstanding service that station staff provide, and we want to support them during this time.

The Minister knows that commuters on our line and our franchise have been at the forefront of innovation. We believe in innovation. For over a decade, our commuter groups and rail users, supported by MPs, have focused on flexible season tickets, 15-minute delay repay, more online ticketing and investment in our railway. We believe in those things, but not to the detriment service delivery. That is why I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) for convening this debate and for his authoritative opening. This is about people and rail users.

If I may say so, the Minister is one of my favourite Ministers in this Government because he engages and listens. I urge him to consider the nature of this debate and the points he has heard, and readdress the concerns. I invite him to Essex and to my constituency to visit our many rail stations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

Commercial matters around car manufacture and delivery are up to the individual manufacturers. What we have seen in the UK recently is the Government putting in £100 million to help to support Nissan and the next generation of electric vehicles being delivered up in Sunderland.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that strike action on our railways will lead to more congestion on our roads. In Essex, that means more congestion on the A12 and A120. Will he kindly commit to meeting me and the leader of Essex County Council to discuss those two road schemes?

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hope they do Chorley at the same time.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to his new role and thank him for all his work in the Home Office.

Will the Minister commit to the upgrade of Witham train station, which has been under debate and discussion for many years? Importantly, will he help with the accessibility issue at Marks Tey station? I also invite him to come to Marks Tey station to look at the work that is needed to make it fully accessible.

[Kevin Foster]

I have a feeling that I will hear quite a lot about Chorley station over the next few months, Mr Speaker.

Turning to matters in Essex, I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend in her place, campaigning hard for her constituents. I would be delighted to visit—I expect that that is an invitation I really cannot refuse.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

I am more than happy to celebrate the work of Bristol Community Transport; Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership, which is in or close to the hon. Lady’s constituency, also does incredibly good work. We have done everything we can in the Department to be as flexible as possible, so that those with community transport contracts in constituencies can carry on doing their work. We provide substantial financial support for all public transport, but of course I will always aim to secure even more funding, including in the next spending review.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Community transport in Essex would benefit from investment in Essex’s roads, and particularly from the dualling of the A120 and the widening of A12. Will the Minister work with the Department to ensure that both those schemes feature in the road investment strategy 2?

[Ms Ghani]

That is a fantastic question. My right hon. Friend has captured my imagination, and that of the Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). I believe that the schemes are in the pipeline, and if I cannot meet my right hon. Friend, no doubt the Roads Minister will, to make sure that the schemes are carried forward.

Transport Infrastructure: Essex

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transport infrastructure in Essex.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for having granted this debate, and to his office for having worked with me, as they understood the background to why this debate has been called. I also put on the record my thanks to two colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and for Colchester (Will Quince), for joining and supporting today’s debate. There is a great deal of interest in this issue not just from constituents across the county of Essex, but from colleagues and representatives from Essex County Council, who have joined us today.

Transport infrastructure across Essex is an issue of major importance. As the Minister knows, I have secured a number of Adjournment debates on the topic and asked one or two parliamentary questions about it. I suspect that in his office and his Department, there might be some filing cabinets containing much correspondence on a number of issues, and about Essex in particular. I have no doubt that, when being briefed by officials for this debate, he had a peek into those filing cabinets and so is well prepared to deal with the questions and issues that will come up.

The debate is about emphasising the need to progress infrastructure across the county of Essex, and addressing some of the serious questions that need answering about how we do so. Before going into details about specific transportation schemes across Essex and projects that need to be progressed, it is important to give the Minister an overview of the economy of Essex. That will demonstrate why investment in transport infrastructure—which naturally brings a return on investment back to the county and to the country—matters so much, and why we need Government support and intervention to ensure that we keep Essex moving and have the right factors and catalysts driving those projects.

The economy of the county of Essex, including the unitary authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock, is dynamic and innovative. The House has constantly heard that where Essex leads, others follow; that is because we are a county of entrepreneurs, who have seen our county throughout the good times and the bad. I think all Members present who represent Essex have seen some of those good times and bad times. Over the past decade there has been a 25% increase in the number of enterprises across Essex. In 2010, when I became a Member of Parliament, that number stood at 61,540. By 2018 it had risen to 77,365. That is a phenomenal level of growth, and I do not think anybody can say it has just happened automatically; it has happened because of the dynamic nature of our county, and because of the risk takers and entrepreneurs who believe in the county of Essex and seek to invest in it. It has also happened despite our crumbling, inadequate and poor infrastructure, so we can speculate on how much more investment Essex would have seen if we had received infrastructure investment as well.

We have highly skilled firms in Essex. We are fortunate enough to have business groups, including the brilliant Essex chamber of commerce, which champions many businesses across a range of sectors. The Minister will be aware of an organisation that I established and chair, the Essex Business, Transport and Infrastructure Forum—it is a mouthful, so we call it EBTIF. When I established it, we worked with business and the Essex chamber of commerce to engage directly with the Government to highlight the importance of infrastructure investment in our great county, which will be a recurring theme in this debate, and certainly in my remarks today.

The Essex chamber of commerce has an outstanding record. It is proactive, both in mobilising business and in engaging Government. Just this week we met the Housing Minister to speak about transport and housing. We also met the Secretary of State for Transport in the past month, which I am going to come on to when I talk about specific schemes. I invite the Minister to come to one of EBTIF’s meetings and to visit our county, to sit in our traffic jams and see our infrastructure so that he will appreciate the nature of the challenge across the county, even more than he already does from the filing cabinets full of correspondence.

Of course, it is not only individuals who depend on our transport sector, but businesses and everyone else. Essex has a strong advanced manufacturing and engineering sector that employs over 50,000 people in over 4,200 companies. We are host to a range of household names across the constituencies of all right hon. and hon. Members present, including BAE Systems, Teledyne e2v, Fläkt Woods in Colchester, and Crittall in Witham. We have a high-tech cluster; we specialise in life sciences, renewable energies, aerospace, defence, security, biotech, digitech—you name it, we have it going on.

We also have a vibrant agricultural and food production sector. In the county of Essex, farming alone is worth over £400 million to our economy and employs over 8,000 people. We have the famous Wilkin & Sons, Wicks Manor, and Shaken Udder Milkshakes, which is based in my constituency. All those businesses are testaments to Essex. If the Minister would like some more statistics, I can tell him that we produce every year enough wheat to make 1.3 billion loaves of bread, enough barley to make 280 million pints of beer, and 150 million eggs. We also grow outdoor vegetables on 5,000 acres of land, so roads and transport are important to us.

On top of that, we are attracting more and more businesses and professionals across the finance and insurance sectors; we have 66,000 professionals in Essex, so it is important that we continue to grow and support them. We have a dynamic academic and educational sector, with Writtle University College, Anglia Ruskin University and the University of Essex—my former university—with its knowledge gateway. It is an outstanding university with a first-class international reputation.

We have so much going on in the areas of multi-modality connectivity and logistics. We have over 1,000 acres of port-adjacent, tri-modally connected logistics and distribution sites, which are the backbone of our economy, and we are connected by road, rail, sea and air to global markets. We have four major seaports—London Gateway, Tilbury, Harwich and Purfleet—with a fifth major port, Felixstowe, just over the border in Suffolk. There are also six port-side rail freight terminals and three key tri-modal logistic sites at London Gateway and the London distribution park. Of course, we also have our airports: Stansted, which is the UK’s third largest air freight hub by capacity, and Southend airport. Those airports are not just growing, but experiencing considerable passenger growth and, in the case of Stansted, benefiting from private sector investment to the tune of £600 million. Essex is also connected to Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports through our connections to the infamous M25.

However, we need to ensure that our roads keep traffic moving. One statistic says it all: it is not surprising to learn that Essex is the local authority with the second-highest traffic level in the country, with 9.68 billion vehicle miles in 2017 alone. That is 2 billion miles more than in 1997, and if the unitary authorities of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea are included, the greater Essex area has the highest traffic level by distance, with 11.2 billion miles. To put that into perspective, it is equivalent to the distance from Earth to interstellar space, so it is fair to say that we in Essex spend a lot of our time on the roads.

Despite Essex’s strategic location, the importance of ports, airports, roads and rail, and the work of our businesses and local authorities—I pay tribute to my colleagues in Essex County Council, who have put Essex’s transport infrastructure at the heart of their policy making and the representations they bring to Westminster through us, their Members of Parliament—our transport infrastructure, especially our roads, is at capacity. Our roads have reached their limits and it is beyond a joke.

It is important that we grow and take strategic advantage of our location and boost our global trade links—of course it is—but there has to be a recognition in Government that we are being held back by key parts of our strategic infrastructure that are no longer fit for purpose. They need new and urgent investment to boost the economy not only of Essex, but of the country.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate, which is very important to the people of Essex. She is absolutely right to highlight the infrastructure challenges we face, particularly on our road network. She is right to say that Essex County Council, and in particular Councillor Kevin Bentley—he is the deputy leader and looks after infrastructure for the county—have been struggling manfully in trying to cope with all this. The Minister must understand that our main arterial routes—the A13, the A127 and the A12—are bursting at the seams. The Government want more house building in south Essex and the rest of the county. I make it plain to the Minister that he has to pay for the infrastructure if he wants those houses built. If the Government will not come up with the money, for instance to make the A127 the M127, they can forget their housing targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that, although this is not a well-attended debate, interventions should be short, brief and to the point.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks. He is right on a number of points. First, Essex County Council and my colleague Councillor Kevin Bentley, the deputy leader and cabinet member for infrastructure, have been ensuring that we lean in—I think that is the right term—with the advocacy that has been brought to this place and the Government. My right hon. Friend’s point about roads and housing is timely, because I am just about to speak about key schemes and the whole issue of where the pressure points are.

A number of important projects and schemes need to be backed by the Government and progressed to ease the pressure on infrastructure. The costs of investing in the schemes will be paid back. We can work out the return on investment and the number of jobs that will be created through the investment and the subsequent tax receipts. Dynamic modelling facilitates and enables that.

I want to focus on two particular schemes for important strategic roads in the east of England that traverse the Witham constituency. I think we could all write books on both roads—history books, I dare say. There is a long history of delays and congestion, but their futures are linked. They are also connected to the potential future housing and development growth plans around mid-Essex and the Witham constituency. The delays caused by congestion are worse than inconvenient; they have a devastating impact on local communities and the economy. An additional half-hour delay every day for some of our great logistics businesses can mean a loss of tens of thousands of pounds a year. We hear that all the time as Members of Parliament, but it is no good just sitting and agreeing with my constituents and businesses; we need to put our foot on the gas and do something.

In debates on Brexit, the future relationship, supply chains and border checks, we need to ensure that we also look at how our inadequate infrastructure is hindering basic supply chains in our county and in the country as a whole. The delays caused by traffic and congestion on key strategic roads could be far more damaging to our economy, particularly in Essex, because of the infrastructure. The case for investment in the A12 and the A120 is compelling and has been recognised, but there are some major barriers, and that is what I want to focus on.

Back in the 2014 autumn statement, the Government announced their commitment to invest in and support the widening of the A12 between junction 19 at the Boreham interchange and junction 25 at Marks Tey. It was part of a major announcement that we all welcomed on a number of strategic road upgrades for the east of England. The work was described as an investment to

“begin phase 1 of a major upgrade to the A12, with the addition of a third lane between Chelmsford and Colchester”.

That decision was long-awaited and welcomed by everyone: commuters, businesses and our local authorities. It also opened up the prospect of further widening north of Marks Tey in later phases. It was rightly a phased scheme.

I think all Members here travel on the A12—I travel on that stretch every week. We all see the problems, the congestion and the need to expand capacity. Highways England has stated that

“the road is almost past its capacity. Motorists regularly experience major delays at peak times. Up to 90,000 vehicles travel between junction 19 and 25 every day. Forecasts reveal that the traffic on the A12 will exceed capacity by 2038. Congestion will increase if nothing is done to address this problem.”

Three fatal collisions and 12 serious accidents were identified in a five-year period. Concerns were raised about the eight junctions on this stretch, with problems including

“below standard slip roads and capacity problems which can result in tailbacks.”

The condition of the road is also poor, so a comprehensive widening scheme offers a chance to improve the surface of the road. The widening scheme also comes with the prospect of altering junctions to better suit local needs and alleviate pressures on local roads. For example, a new junction by Kelvedon to better connect to roads into Tiptree has the prospect of alleviating congestion and traffic through Kelvedon and Feering. That part of Essex had been neglected and ignored for too long, so we need to crack on with developing the widening scheme. It was prioritised to get it started in the first road investment strategy, or RIS1.

A range of stakeholder engagement activities took place. I give credit to Highways England for how it worked with us at the time. There were many events where it looked at options through route alignment. Engagement took place with parish—I sat with parish councils—district, borough and county councils, as well as the business community and local residents. It all seemed to be going well. There was consensus on the approach being taken by Highways England. With Braintree District Council and Colchester Borough Council in the process of updating their local plans, there was supposed to be integrated working and engagement to ensure that the widening scheme and local plans complemented each other—that speaks to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made about housing—and did not compromise one another. Throughout stakeholder meetings the issue was raised and it was thought that the work between Highways England and the councils would ensure a smooth process and collaboration and joint working would naturally maximise the benefits of the widening scheme. That all made sense.

After that work, Highways England went out to public consultation in early 2017, presenting four options to the public. Option 1 was to widen across the current route alignment. Option 2 was to widen the western side on the current route with a new alignment from just before junction 22 to junction 25. Option 3 was a realignment between junctions 22 and 23. Option 4 was a realignment between junctions 23 and 25. The consultation process was a massive exercise with more than 18,000 people attending public exhibitions and more than 900 responses received. It was backed by our local councils, which raised no objections to the consultation or the options put forward at the time.

The outcome was due a year later in early 2018, when Highways England was scheduled to announce its preferred route alignment. That would have enabled further consultation to take place, a development consent order to commence and diggers to go into the ground in 2020. In fact, the position and timetable were made clear to me in an email from Highways England on 29 September 2017. The email gave an update on the consultation, stating that

“key issues were raised relating to other major developments in the area, environmental impacts, non-motorised user service provision and safety related issues. The independent analysis of the responses received, as well as a Report on Public Consultation will be published when a preferred route is announced.”

The email went on to reference the importance of giving careful consideration to

“emerging and proposed major developments”.

Highways England said that it had

“decided to extend our options selection assessment and expect to announce the preferred route this coming winter.”

It then went on to confirm the timescale, stating:

“Following the preferred route announcement, we will undertake detailed engagement with all affected landowners and hold a further consultation, giving local communities and other stakeholders a second chance to have their say. This consultation is likely to be held in spring 2018 and will include detailed plans of a preferred route...Despite extending our options assessment, the first phase of construction is still anticipated to start in 2020.”

In October 2017, the Minister wrote to advise me that owing to a review of RIS1 and some resequencing of schemes, there could be a three to six-month delay to the scheme. I questioned that and the Minister confirmed that

“the recently announced optimisation of the Road Investment Strategy relates to the start of works and does not impact on the decision about the route. I want to reassure you that the Government and Highways England’s strong commitment to this scheme remains. While the start of construction will get delayed by 3-6 months as part of Highways England’s plans to reduce disruption for road users and businesses, Highway England will work with you and other local partners to ensure that any impacts are minimised.”

At the end of 2017, therefore, the position with the A12 widening scheme was that an announcement and further consultation on the preferred route were to start shortly, with construction likely to start in 2020, probably later in the year owing to some resequencing work. There was no indication from the Government or Highways England of the bombshell that was about to knock the scheme off course.

Two years after the consultation was completed, we are no further forward with this key scheme, so we have to ask where is the delay and where has it gone wrong? We know that Colchester Borough Council made a last-minute change to its housing and development plans: plans that had been in the making for years were abruptly changed. They redrew on the map the garden settlement community proposals in a way that completely blew apart the options in the A12 consultation, adding costs to the scheme and pushing the scheme back into RIS2. It has profound consequences for strategic investment across the region. It pushes back opportunities to widen the A12 north of Marks Tey, and it has an impact on the A120 dualling scheme, which I will come on to shortly. It also means that the A12 widening scheme could take place at the same time as the construction of the lower Thames crossing, putting pressure on construction costs and supply chains. That means adding congestion to the county.

I do not want to go over the past, in particular the local development plans, but constituents living in the vicinity of the A12 and the proposed realignments from the 2017 consultation are in limbo, creating too much uncertainty. According to my postbag, people cannot decide whether to sell their homes or move. Huge inconvenience has been caused by the local plan triggering a chain of events. We need to look at the whole issue. We cannot progress the road until we have the housing scheme in place. In fact, the Minister for Housing was in touch with me in September last year. He also referred to the delays and said the issue

“highlights the need for greater certainty of the funding and feasibility of these two schemes”,

in relation to housing.

A written parliamentary answer from the Department in January this year stated:

“The Department for Transport and Highways England have been considering how best to take forward the A12 scheme, in the light of concerns raised by the Planning Inspector in June 2018 regarding the proposed Garden Community at Marks Tey and its interaction with the A12 scheme.”

The situation is now becoming absurd. The roads will not progress until the housing and development plans have progressed, but those plans will not progress until the roads have progressed. What has happened? We need answers now. What about the principle of alignment and integrated working? The matter must be addressed sooner rather than later.

I have specific questions for the Minister. At what point will the Government step in to take control of the A12 scheme and work with local authorities to provide the leadership that they need to drive the matter forward? When will the Government, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Treasury make a decision on progressing the scheme if the local plan is subject to delay? How much longer will we have to wait? Will the Minister ensure that, as a matter of urgency, Highways England brings forward a proposed route alignment that is future-proofed so that housing proposals can evolve around it? We cannot continue to wait.

What assessment have the Government made of the economic impact of the delays, which bring additional costs, and of the impact on other strategic road schemes such as the A120 dualling scheme? What work is being done to support my constituents who live so close to the A12 that they are stuck? They are unable to sell their properties or even determine their futures. They are victims of the failure to get the scheme going.

Does the Minister recognise that the delays to the A12 widening scheme between junctions 19 and 25 are causing delays to widen the A12 north of junction 25, which local people in the county need to see? I want to be part of the solution and we all need to come together, so will the Minister agree to set up a working group that is led by me and brings together Highways England, his Department, MHCLG, the Treasury, our colleagues at Essex County Council, the business community and other stakeholders to get on top of the widening scheme, as well as the A120 proposal? We cannot run the risk of this issue moving into RIS3. The delays are phenomenal and have an enormous impact, which brings me on to the A120, a road of strategic importance not only to the county, but to our country.

The A120 is a strategic economic corridor that cannot be underestimated. The Minister and all Members in the debate today know the history of the single carriageway. The stretch between Braintree and Marks Tey is 12 miles long and is regarded as one of the most dangerous in the country. There is a litany of safety issues. It has been a death trap. Last week I met two parish councils, Bradwell and Stisted, that have highlighted the road safety concerns constantly. We have campaigners, including Save Lives Not Time, whose campaign has been phenomenal, working with the local community to actually do something to reduce speed along the A120.

The road needs to be dualled and it needs to meet the increased capacity. It has been 10 years since the previous Labour Government abandoned proposals to dual the A120. Endless studies have been undertaken, and I pay tribute to my colleagues at Essex County Council who have been instrumental in driving proposals and leading them forward with me and other MPs.

A report from Atkins in 2008 stated:

“The A120...currently constrained by the capacity of the single carriageway section...between Braintree and the A12...is congested and suffers traffic delays.”

Traffic delays result in pollution. They are caused by accidents and have an incredible impact. Evidence from 2005 demonstrated that an estimated 25,000 vehicles used that stretch of road every single day. In 2010, around 14% of traffic—one in seven vehicles—is accounted for by HGVs, compared with an average of 6% across Essex. Had the scheme been progressed 10 years ago, we would have a road that is fit for purpose. We would have integrated roads connecting with the A12. We would have a better and more resilient local road network. The evidence is compelling: the road must be dualled. To be fair, we have all made the case for years and years.

Essex County Council has worked very closely with Highways England. Work was led on developing a scheme and holding a consultation by the county council. It worked with Highways England throughout to ensure that there was a strong and robust case. Options went out for consultation at the same time as the A12 consultation, with a view to securing agreement from the Government to put the A120 dualling scheme into RIS2 and sequence construction on both schemes to maximise the benefits, while reducing the impact that comes from major highway improvements.

The Minister knows about the favoured route, option D from the consultation, which was brought forward by Essex County Council. It has a benefit to cost ratio of 4.5, which is important because it scores far higher than any major projects the Government have invested in. It will help to unlock 20,000 jobs and support housing growth by perhaps as many as 32,000 new dwellings, if needed. The improvements in journey time and reliability are valued at about £48 million, with £350 million of benefit to freight traffic. The overall costed journey time savings could total £1.2 billion. Safety will be improved. Congestion through villages will be reduced, with Silver End set to experience 59% less traffic, Cressing 44% less and Bradwell 43% less. According to the proposals, construction will take around three years and will support about 500 construction jobs.

In total, the scheme can add £2.2 billion in gross value added to the local economy at a cost of £550 million. Few schemes are as attractive as this one. The Minister knows it is one of the best prepared business cases for RIS2 because of the evidence contained in it. The feasibility work was supported by Government funding, for which I thank the Government and the Minister, after lobbying by myself and others to put the project forward. That case has been made consistently.

The Government have committed to dualling the scheme; we now need the backing, Minister. We need to ensure that there are no contradictions between the Department, Highways England or local authorities. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the timetable for submissions for RIS2 and on the decision making. It is pivotal to securing the road, and strengthening our infrastructure across the county. The A12 and the A120 need to be sequential.

I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the delays to the A12 widening scheme will not hamper or hinder in any way the proposals for the A120 dualling scheme to be included in RIS2. With the road currently operating beyond belief in terms of capacity, people need certainty. We are looking for a fresh impetus so that we can recalibrate both schemes and take a stronger, fresh approach to secure the Government’s national mission to build more new homes. There is a willingness in our county to be resilient and to ensure that we do everything that we can.

I have a few other points to make, and then I will give colleagues time to speak. There are other roads across Essex. The lower Thames crossing will provide a vital link connecting Essex and Kent. I would welcome a progress report from the Minister on that scheme, and on whether there will be connectivity. We are all about connectivity and joined-up, integrated working. We must ensure that the schemes are delivered on time and progress on time, and that Essex County Council is supported in the right way in the work that it needs to do to achieve that integrated approach across the county, so that all road schemes are progressed in the right way. My colleagues will speak about other roads. I think it is fair to say that road investment is pivotal, not just for Essex County Council but for the Government in terms of delivering for the county of Essex.

I will turn to a different modality: rail. I thank the Department for Transport and the Rail Minister for the amount of time that he has spent with me recently. As the Government have recognised, the Great Eastern main line and the West Anglia main line are poor relations to other parts of the rail network. I am chair of the Great Eastern main line taskforce, which was established back in 2013. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer supported the establishment of the taskforce to look at the strategic rail needs of the region. We have been an instrumental voice in putting business cases to the Government. The first business case that went to the Government in 2013 secured some important outcomes, off the back of a very robust rail prospectus that colleagues and I worked towards.

We released a package of investments that were linked to a new franchise, including new rolling stock and timetable changes. The package amounted to £4.5 billion in gross value added to the region’s economy, meaning thousands of new jobs. We are now interested in moving the scheme forward, and are working with the Government on the new process by submitting a revised and updated rail prospectus. We intend to restate the economic benefits, which can of course be multiplied. A multiplier effect in rail can be complemented by a multiplier effect in road investment; I argue that the two must almost be coterminous.

We will clearly restate what investment in the Great Eastern main line should look like, and that it should be focused on as a national economic priority. I know that it is not in the Minister’s portfolio, but I would welcome an update on a number of project schemes for which we are seeking commitments and support, including the introduction of a passing loop in the vicinity of Witham, the redoubling of Haughley junction, improvements to the Trowse swing bridge, resignalling south of Chelmsford, and Liverpool Street station improvements.

Combined, those key investments will increase capacity on the network and, importantly for all rail users, reduce delays. There are some long-awaited new developments, including Beaulieu Park railway station—or, as some call it, Chelmsford parkway—which will support new housing growth. A three-track or four-track option with additional platforms would serve to future-proof the line and to increase capacity.

We also need investment in infrastructure to implement digital railway technology for the Great Eastern main line, and to bring in the new 15-minute Delay Repay system, along with new technology to help commuters claim compensation for poor and delayed services, which have resulted in a lack of investment in the past. I know that we are getting close to an announcement on Delay Repay 15. The Minister might be limited in what he can say, because of commercial terms, but any signal that he can give regarding the direction of travel would be greatly welcome, including any improvements on the Witham to Braintree branch line.

I will draw to a close, as I have spoken for a considerable time and there are other speakers. From my perspective as a Member of Parliament for an Essex constituency, the chair of the Great Eastern main line taskforce, someone who has led the Essex Business, Transport and Infrastructure Forum, and someone who has worked—I think it is fair to say—quite diligently with my colleagues at Essex County Council, our deputy leader, Councillor Kevin Bentley, and all Members across Essex, there is a severe need for investment. The business cases have been made consistently to the Department and to various Ministers, including the Minister who is present today.

We are not shy as a county. I am proud of our diligence and our ability to understand economics, business and a return on investment. Essex is a net contributor to Her Majesty’s Treasury, and has been for a number of years—from the days when entrepreneurs sought to move to Essex. Our rail line has been under-invested in. The Minister knows the case for the A12 and the A120. I urge him to clarify the position on the development of both schemes. We cannot have further delay, or contradictions between what the Department says and what Highways England says.

We need an integrated way of working that involves Essex County Council, Highways England, the Department, and myself and other colleagues, so that we are all facing in the right direction and can deliver the economic benefits of jobs and housing, which we all want. It is important that the Government send a strong message to the county of Essex, investors, commuters, businesses, constituents and our local authorities, to say that we will work with them and support them to ensure that, as we say constantly, where Essex leads others will follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I thank all colleagues for their contributions, and the Minister and his team for his very considered and detailed response. I do not need to press him on anything in particular, but I thank him for the opportunity to meet and follow up with him on the need for a working group, to ensure that we stay on track and pursue the integrated way of working across the Department, Highways England, local authorities and Members of Parliament. There is a lot of work to do, and we are all committed to supporting each other to deliver for our communities and for the county of Essex.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered transport infrastructure in Essex.

Rail Infrastructure Investment

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Evans. Out of courtesy, I must apologise to hon. Members in advance just in case—I emphasise “in case”—I need to leave before the conclusion of the debate, due to another commitment. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for the case that she has just put, and to all other members of the Committee for their work on “Rail infrastructure investment”. I have a copy of the report and have looked at it, and it is fair to say that it covers a wide range of issues, which the hon. Lady spoke about in her very good and detailed speech.

As the Minister will know, rail infrastructure is incredibly important, not only to my constituents in Witham but to the entire east of England region. I will start by paying tribute to him, because he has recently become the Rail Minister. I had the privilege of working with him previously, in his other incarnation in the Department for Transport, so it is great to see him back there. I thank him and his officials for giving me some time recently, to discuss not only some of the issues that I will raise today, but some of my concerns, as well as the developments that are taking place on the Great Eastern main line and some of the big investment opportunities that we would like to see for the region.

The Minister will know from our recent discussions about the work of the Great Eastern main line taskforce, which I currently chair and which is putting forward the case for strategic investment in rail infrastructure. Back in 2014 we submitted to the Government a business case for a package of investments—I have it here: “exhibit A”—which I have no doubt the Minister is fully versed in, because I know he has seen copies of it. This business case from 2014 discussed the potential to deliver over £4 billion of gross value added to the economy, to support thousands of new jobs, and to help meet the transport needs of the population and housing growth in the region.

Of course, this business case was put together in 2014 by all the Members of Parliament from Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. It received a great deal of Government interest and time, with interest shown by the former Chancellor, the former Prime Minister and various Ministers, including the former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin).

As we have seen in the east of England, and are still seeing, there is so much opportunity for economic growth in our area, with lower housing costs than in other areas. We are on a commuter line and we are accommodating a greater number of commuters and families who travel to London, and not only in Essex but across the eastern region. We are very proud of that. Families choose to enjoy the enormous benefits of living in the villages of my constituency and elsewhere in the region, while being able to work in London as well. I have to say that that is because of the Government’s wider investment in other sectors, including education—we have some amazing schools now—and quality of life is obviously a key feature too.

Of course, Essex and the east of England are fast-growing parts of the country, and they are strategically placed to deliver new jobs and economic growth. Look at what we have going on. We have world-leading businesses and centres of innovation: the Essex knowledge gateway, the University of East Anglia, Essex University and Cambridge University. They are all great hubs of intellect, innovation, jobs, economic growth and entrepreneurship. We have a diverse range of businesses, such as financial services, logistics, manufacturing, construction, modern bio-tech and science. We also have key international transport hubs, as my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware, including the key ports in London Gateway, Tilbury, Harwich and Felixstowe, and our airports at Stansted and Southend.

In Essex we have great business voices, which were instrumental in making the case for investment in our rail back in 2014. They include the Essex chamber of commerce, which made the business case, outlined the GVA of rail investment, combined the numbers and showed the economic growth that we can deliver outside London, and the new opportunities that will come our way. The Essex economy is already touching £40 billion in GVA, and obviously since 2010 the number of entrepreneurs has risen and we see business growth getting stronger and stronger. I see how much our businesses are already doing, and the jobs and prosperity they create. I am incredibly proud to see the enterprising spirit they have shown. Like me, they look forward to a future in which we can continue to build upon their contributions. They have a positive outlook for the future, not only for Essex but for the whole region.

We know that one of the key factors for growth is strategic investment in our roads and, in particular, our rail, so that we continue to grow and secure long-term investment. Of course, such investment means work on key roads and economic corridors, such as the A12 widening scheme and the dualling of the A120, but it also means investing in our rail network. Our rail network across the east of England has suffered from severe under-investment for many years. The Chair of the Transport Committee made some very important points today. She spoke about regional disparity with regard to the north of England, but of course my taskforce in the east of England has demonstrated that even notional calculations of regional finance mask regional disparities. Commuters on the Great Eastern main line, and particularly Greater Anglia commuters, are net contributors to the Treasury through their rail fares. Of course we want to see some of that money coming back out.

The Select Committee’s report quite rightly raised the whole issue of rebalancing rail investment to ensure that it is spread across the country, which I have consistently pushed for. I agree that we need to invest more widely and look at ways to support schemes in the regions and economic centres. Of course, our whole economy needs to become much more efficient, and investing in rail infrastructure across the country will help to deliver that.

However, I emphasise to the Minister that although it seems on paper that investment has been skewed towards London, partly because of the high cost of Crossrail, it is also important that we see a rebalancing exercise that does not come at the expense of excluding investment opportunities that would deliver high levels of value for money and help to drive billions of pounds back into the whole of the UK economy. Of course, we are set to benefit from approximately £2.2 billion of investment through the control period 6 process, but I stress that that investment is to cover maintenance, operations and renewal.

Paragraph 80 of the excellent report, on page 28, focuses on the historic lumpiness of renewals investment. Investment that covers maintenance, renewals, and so on goes to patch things up, and the graph on page 28 shows that the lumpiness of expenditure goes across the various control periods. We want to ensure a consistent level of investment that covers maintenance, so that we are not simply patching things up. It is a welcome commitment. From our perspective, the new refurbishment —new trains, funds for renewal, and repairs to bridges, embankments and signalling to deal with level crossings—will of course be beneficial. However, that is no substitute for a clear strategy of strategic investments in new infrastructure so that we can have a high-performing railway to support our region. That is the right thing, and it is what our commuters all want.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Lady is making an excellent contribution on behalf of the east of England. I wonder whether she agrees that there are significant possibilities for bringing forward digitalisation of the railways. I am told that a huge amount could be done through digitalisation to better address capacity constraints, and that a relatively modest investment in global terms could be transformational in the east. My concern is that, looking ahead over these very long periods, we may well find that technology has moved much more quickly and we have not taken best advantage of those technological changes. Does the right hon. Lady share that concern?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was planning to touch on the significance of digital railway. I mentioned efficiency, and the whole point is how we can use new technology to drive efficiency. Everything is part of a process, and new technology can trump things that have previously gone on. There are also new opportunities for digital signalling. For example, on the Great Eastern main line we are working with the Department for Transport and the Minister to continue to make the case for digital signalling, and part of the case that the GEML taskforce is putting forward is compelling. I know that the Minister is looking forward to receiving the business case that we are currently working on. In previous discussions and meetings he has heard me speak about the pipeline business case that we are working on, and how we will build on the 2014 business case and enhance the numbers, the financials and the key programmes that we should be putting in place. We will revise that business case based on the latest figures for growth, the economy and business, and we will demonstrate that investing in rail in the east of England will help the Government to reach their ambitious targets, not just for housing but for economic growth and regeneration.

Those projects are going to be vast. They will include the introduction of a passing loop in the vicinity of Witham town, right through the heart of the Witham constituency; the redoubling of Haughley junction; improvements to the Trowse swing bridge; re-signalling south of Chelmsford; and improvements to Liverpool Street station. Combined, those investments will increase capacity on the network and—importantly for rail users in my constituency—reduce delays. Through the new franchise to 2025, we will benefit from a new fleet of rolling stock, and the first of those trains are due to enter service very soon. We want to make sure that when they come in we do not have disruption and can get the benefits of efficiencies. Over £1 billion of new investment has been secured following the recommendations of the GEML taskforce, which were actioned by the Government. Of course, we want that infrastructure to complement new trains and maximise the benefits, as well as include those key infrastructure projects.

As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) has said, service improvements on the Great Eastern main line can be delivered through digital railway technology, along with the long-awaited development of Beaulieu Park railway station—Chelmsford parkway, as some call it—with three or four tracks and platforms to facilitate future growth in service opportunities. MPs, councils, businesses and commuters across the region are united behind that vision for rail service across the east of England, and I hope that the Minister and the Department will continue to work with us and back us, working with friends in the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to get that vision fully funded. It is about having an integrated approach across Government to delivering improvement in our rail service and our network, which matters when it comes to wider Government funding.

The Transport Committee’s report comments on the investment process and the enhancement pipeline, which was announced last year and which the hon. Member for Nottingham South spoke about. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will talk about how those schemes can go through that pipeline so that we can be efficient in getting the right kinds of decisions.

I will touch on a few other points very quickly. One—this will also interest the hon. Member for Cambridge—is investing in rail more widely in the region that covers Stansted. Stansted is the third busiest airport by passenger numbers in the country, and the second largest by freight. It has capacity for more flights, and given the capacity issues at Heathrow, we should be encouraging more travel to other airports. Of course, connectivity through the rail link from Stansted to London and further is a major barrier to growth, and our former colleague, the right hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst—now Lord Haselhurst, following his ascension to the other place—is working on proposals to improve connectivity through the West Anglia Taskforce. I commend his work on the issue. We often talk about Crossrail 2 presenting an opportunity for connectivity in that part of the eastern region, and I would like the Minister to provide any updates he can in his concluding remarks.

I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for the opportunity to speak today off the back of the Committee’s excellent report. I also praise the Minister for his attention to rail, obviously from an east of England point of view. I ask him to bring together all the levers of Government—not just those in his Department—to catalyse funding across other Government Departments in order to unlock economic growth and opportunity across the regions of our country, so that we can use our rail much more strategically. Rail investments have been a catalyst for economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I generally think that, with these types of capital project, once the decision to invest is made, the investment has to be seen through, because the full potential of the investment is only realised when it is done to the quality, standard and specification that was set out originally. When things are chipped away towards the end of a project, it is inevitable that the full advantage and economic return on the investment will not be realised, and the original investment will be compromised.

It is critical that the Government take a long-term view. There is far too much short-termism. They are looking to the next election, the next target seat and where their core vote is, rather than to what the structure of our economy will be in the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Greater Manchester is trying to look ahead with its 2040 strategy, but it is very difficult to do that if it does not know what funding is coming down the pipeline. We can decide what is important for our regions, but the way the Government invest makes it very difficult for our regions to plan ahead and ensure they have a joined-up transport strategy. It also makes it very difficult for UK manufacturers and engineering companies to bid for that work and plan ahead, because they do not have a forward programme that they can organise and work towards. I speak to many manufacturers in my constituency. In Oldham, they have contracts with Transport for London and the German Government, but they say consistently that it is very difficult to get a contract with the UK Government. Part of the reason why the Elizabeth Tower is shrouded in steel from all over the world, apart from Britain, is that it is easier for other countries to get contracts from our Government.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very strong case for investment and economic growth in the regions. I agree completely that this is about long-termism. The Minister obviously heard my comments earlier. Part of the reason why the Great Eastern main line taskforce has been pretty robust in our representations is that we have been working with businesses and local enterprise partnerships. We are giving businesses the opportunity to put the long-term case to the Government. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that other regions should replicate that?

[Jim McMahon]

I agree with that approach. It is important that we have an economic view and can demonstrate the wider economic advantage and growth. Transport for the North is working to that end, and has built very good partnerships. It generally has a good relationship with the Government, although there are constant demands for the Government to plan further ahead and be more committed to finding resources. That partnership approach is extremely important.

This has been a good debate. I welcome the Select Committee’s report, because it is important that we shine a light on these issues. As a north-west MP, I thank the Committee members for this piece of work. MPs outside London will, for a period, continue to ask politely for our fair share. We have been doing that for quite a long time now, but the noise will get louder. If the Government are determined to look beyond Brexit and build a Britain that can thrive, they will have to put their hand in their pocket and ensure that every region in the UK gets its fair share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

We have had autumn leaves falling since time began, and whichever rail company has been operating—including nationalised ones—they have found them quite difficult to manage. To suggest that it is suddenly a bigger problem is a mistake.

[Priti Patel]

The Minister is incredibly generous in giving way, and I thank him. Delays are the scourge of commuters on the country’s train network, and of course they all get upset when trains are cancelled or delayed. Is there more the Minister can do to hold franchisee companies to account, with respect to how they communicate with customers and give compensation to rail users?

[Andrew Jones]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She gave a powerful speech, which recognised how transport investment, alongside other investments, can drive an economy. The work that she and colleagues have done on producing a business case has been highly effective. She asked whether I would work with her and of course I will, as I will work with all colleagues, to maximise the benefits of the rail investment we are putting in. As to communication, rail companies can do more. We should be looking at all digital and other means of communicating with customers to keep them informed. There are mechanisms through the franchise agreement for keeping the companies accountable. However, I also regularly meet the Rail Delivery Group, and through those and other regular meetings, with individual operating companies, I have already highlighted the issue of communication with their customers. I will continue to do so, but my right hon. Friend is right that there must be improvement on that.

I was saying a few things about how our network has played a role in the increasing economic growth of the past few years, and how that combination of the public and private sectors, working together, has delivered improvement. That includes private sector skills driving investment for passengers and rail freight. However, that success has also resulted in challenges. We have been open about facing such challenges, including in our programme of infrastructure works in the current investment period, and in the rail structures we inherited. That was very clear and it is why we have taken action and changed our approach. The work of the Select Committee has been very helpful in that respect.

In March 2018 we published our new approach to rail enhancements, called the “Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline: A New Approach for Rail Enhancements”. We have a knack of creating very difficult-to-say acronyms. In September the Secretary of State announced that he had appointed Keith Williams, a respected industry figure. He has expertise in driving customer service excellence, and therefore he is incredibly valuable as we seek to reform the rail industry to become more passenger-focused, and to lead a root and branch review of the railway. The Government’s new approach to enhancements has, as Members will be aware, been a key focus for the Transport Committee. The Williams review is a really exciting moment for our industry. The structures that we have had have helped to turn around decades of decline. We have gone from many years of decline to rapid growth. As many people now use the rail network as did in the 1920s—with all the challenges that come with that, which I shall come on to. The structure has helped to achieve the growth, but it is not clear to me that it will help us take things forward for the next stage. That is what Mr Williams has been asked to consider, and it is an interesting prospect.

The approach being taken learns lessons from CP5, responding to the recommendations of the Bowe review. It is quite profound. We are replacing a once-in-five-years plan with a rolling pipeline of investment, which was a key recommendation of the Committee. I can entirely see why both the review and the Committee made that recommendation. We will be able to respond flexibly to changes in circumstances, and emerging priorities. Unlike in CP5 where certainty—I know we have talked about it—often turned out to be frankly illusory, the supply chain can be confident that once we have made a decision we will stick to it. Those concerned will know exactly how far the commitment extends, for funding and delivery. I completely agree with the principle of transparency to help people plan accordingly. We shall be transparent about the progress of individual schemes as they move through the pipeline, and throughout the control period, but the point is that we are not simply making one announcement at the start of a cycle.

The RNEP has five stages, through which enhancement schemes move from concept to delivery, with increasing levels of detail and development required at each stage. We call them “determine”, “develop”, “design”, “deliver” and “deploy”. A theme runs through them, from “determine”, where the opportunity is identified, to “deliver”, where the solution is provided. Not all projects will progress through all the stages. Each stage is preceded by a decision point, where we will decide whether the scheme is ready to advance to the next stage, whether more work is needed, or whether there is a better way of achieving things. We commit to progress only to the next stage—not all the way to completion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

Yes, exactly. What form it will take I do not know, but as schemes progress through, from “determine” to “develop” and so on, we will be transparent about it.

The objective is to secure value for the taxpayer by progressing schemes only when we have an appropriate understanding of how much they will cost, how long they will take, and the benefits that will be delivered. That is in great contrast to CP5, where that did not happen.

[Priti Patel]

As the Minister will know, the Great Eastern main line taskforce is currently working to that very pipeline, for the next business case. Funding will be incredibly important for any project that enters the pipeline. I want to ask the Minister something on which I have previously pressed the Secretary of State. Will there be an opportunity to look at cross-Government funding that covers, for example, money from other budgets, such as local government and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy? As the Minister knows, the GEML case made in 2014, which will be made again, looked across at the economic benefits of rail investment, and considered economic growth, too. That effectively means that we must look at new funding mechanisms that go across the Treasury, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so that we bring the economic benefits that many colleagues have spoken about in the debate.

[Andrew Jones]

My right hon. Friend is as wise as ever. Once a Treasury Minister, always a Treasury Minister, I suspect. The point about bringing things together was, I think, at the heart of such things as the national productivity investment fund, which is about making sure we have, and control, the levers to drive economic productivity—productivity being at the heart of the UK’s future economic success. I see rail working alongside Departments to open up opportunity—commercial, residential, trade and so on. I see that future of collaboration as the way we will take forward some of our projects across the network.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

To reassure the hon. Gentleman, my answer means that today the rules are being changed, and while I cannot give a certain outcome to an individual case, people who suffer from conditions that have made it difficult for them to become commercial pilots will find it easier to become commercial pilots, as the CAA takes—I think—a more sensible approach to this matter.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) about the emergency services’ response last week. I pay tribute to all those who carried out works across the rail network over Christmas, giving up their Christmas holiday period for the investment programme.

I am proud to be from a party of opportunity. We are a party of opportunity that provided this country with its first woman Prime Minister. Today, we are the party that provides the first Muslim woman Minister to speak from the Government Dispatch Box—my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). I congratulate her, and I am very proud to sit alongside her today.

[Priti Patel]

The Secretary of State will be aware that Essex adds over £35 billion to the economy; but our businesses that want to grow cannot grow, because of poor transport infrastructure. Will my right hon. Friend help those businesses by committing to back key projects such as the rail loop north of Witham, investment in the A12 and investment in the A120?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely understand the importance that my right hon. Friend places on transport links in Essex, which is why we are investing both in the county and across the country. Highways England is progressing the A12 improvements, which are now going through the consultation and design stages. On the railways, a number of improvements are required to the eastern main line, and the rail loop is one of those under consideration.