A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project
(2 days, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and a privilege to have secured the last Adjournment debate before recess, especially on an issue that is of great importance to my constituents, Cumbria and the wider region. I start with an apology to the Minister. Recess is starting and half our colleagues have already set off to their constituencies, and I have dragged her in for the graveyard shift. I am sorry, but it is appreciated.
We are rapidly approaching completion of the spending review. Having spent months communicating with officials in National Highways, and along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) with Ministers in the Department for Transport and the Treasury, I view this as my last chance to help get the project over the line.
In preparation for what is my first Adjournment debate, I noted the last time that a politician with my surname spoke in a pre-recess Adjournment debate. It was 24 years ago, and the then Speaker—perhaps setting an unusual precedent—joined in the debate. If you want to say some supportive words, Mr Speaker, I am sure that my constituents would be very pleased—although, I admit that the extent to which Speaker Martin stuck to the topic of the debate in 2001 is debatable.
The A66 northern trans-Pennine project is the north of England’s largest road project and, at a cost of £1.5 billion, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the new Government are reviewing the business case. I will set out the importance of the project for my constituents and why it must go ahead.
I know that the Minister will not preannounce from the Dispatch Box the outcome of the spending review, but I hope that she will confirm that the A66 project is in the running and has not been shelved, as was claimed by a Conservative politician on BBC television last week. That politician oversaw and left a council on the brink of bankruptcy, and the irony of them now pontificating on the nation’s finances is frankly bizarre.
I take the financial position inherited from the last Government very seriously, and I applaud the Government’s mission of securing sustained growth. The important thing for those of us in the rural north is that we see our fair share of that growth and the investment that enables it. The last decade has given us reasons to worry. The Institute for Public Policy Research North has produced figures showing that between 2010 and 2020, the north missed out on £86 billion in transport investment compared with London—a lost decade that only leaves us weaker at a time when we need growth. Last year the same think-tank calculated that total public spending on transport projects in 2023-24 was £1,321 per person in London, which is more than double the £615 per person spent on the north.
I therefore welcome the Government’s renewed focus on the north and the recent announcements of higher investment in the north of England this year as part of Labour’s plan for change. Indeed, the Prime Minister has indicated that the Government will be spending more than double the money per head on local transport in the north than in the south this year. But I still remember the last Government’s integrated rail plan for the north, which made not one mention of Cumbria.
I see this project as a key enabler for delivering growth in my region. The project will see the upgrade of approximately 50 miles of the A66 between the M6 at Penrith and the A1(M) at Scotch Corner, converting single carriageway sections into dual carriageways and improving countless junctions along the route.
I feel obliged to offer some expectation management to my constituents, as not one mile of the road will be dualled in the Penrith and Solway constituency. The major benefits for the residents of Penrith will be the upgrades to the junction 40 of the M6 and the Kemplay roundabout. I cannot count the number of times I have sat in traffic on those junctions, alongside local residents fighting through the commercial and tourist traffic, just trying to go about their daily business, with tourists stuck just at the beginning or end of their holiday in the Lake District national park or north Pennines, and the heavy goods vehicle drivers anxiously thinking about their tachographs. Perhaps they are thinking about dinner and getting home to their families, as I am sure some hon. Members are now. Some are simply travelling down the M6, possibly not even conscious that a bottleneck on an adjacent A road is the cause of their delayed journey.
The planned underpass just outside Penrith will separate the east-west A66 traffic from the north-south flow. That will reduce traffic volumes by 55% and provide major benefits for local people, including pedestrians and cyclists, improving access to Penrith itself and the facilities and businesses around the roundabout. It will reduce delays and queues at the M6 junction 40 and will ensure that visitors have a much better start to their holidays, whether they are travelling by car or taking advantage of the local active travel network.
There will be environmental benefits and economic benefits. We would feel as if the Government had prioritised the rural north, so often neglected by central Government. This project will improve connections between Cumbria, North Yorkshire, the Tees Valley, Tyne and Wear, and beyond. It is the most direct route between the central belt of Scotland and the eastern side of England. It connects cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh with Leeds, Sheffield and Norwich, if those journeys are made by road.
Safety has been a huge concern along the route and there have been a number of avoidable deaths over the last few years. The junctions of particular concern are in the Richmond and Northallerton and the Westmorland and Lonsdale constituencies, and I know that the hon. Members representing those areas have raised their concerns with Ministers. However, the wider route is regularly used by my constituents and I am acutely aware of the risks that stretches of the road present.
Adjacent to the Kemplay roundabout are the Cumbria fire and police headquarters, with operational elements at both. In the summer, it can take 45 minutes for non-emergency vehicles to travel 100 metres. For our emergency services, that congestion presents a significant issue, and I know that Dave Allen, Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner, fully supports the project not only to improve emergency vehicle access, but to make the A66 safer.
After my election in July, I met National Highways to discuss the scheme, knowing that this Government faced difficult choices. I wanted reassurance that the business case was up to date and would withstand scrutiny. The primary economic benefits come from travel time savings that will be realised by business users. The A66 is an important route for freight traffic, with HGVs comprising a quarter of the vehicles on the route, and the fact that that is more than double the national average highlights the importance of the route for business. The regular closures on the existing route present significant disruption for business-to-business transactions, with many of my constituency businesses directly affected.
During discussions with National Highways, it became apparent that existing Treasury Green Book guidance prevents a distinction being made in the economic case between general road users and business vehicles. That means that the cost-benefit ratio does not distinguish between an individual making a social trip in a car and an HGV delivering vital components to a factory. For a road project so important to business, that is a disaster.
I understand that new guidance is on the way, but not in time for it to be used to appraise this project in this spending review. That limits the ability for the economic case to tell the true story, so efforts have been put in to reflect that within the strategic case. However, that still leaves me uncomfortable that the true benefits of the scheme are not fully articulated. As frustrated as I am, the economic case as it stands still predicts hundreds of millions of pounds of benefits, primarily through cost efficiency and saving to business, and even additional tax revenue through employment.
The project is vital for Cumbria. It will reduce road traffic accidents and deaths on the single-carriage section of the route. It will improve strategic regional and national connectivity, particularly for hauliers—heavy goods vehicles, which account for a quarter of all traffic on the road, are double the national average. It will reduce delays and queues during busy periods and improve the performance of key junctions such as the A66/A6 junction and M6 junction 40. It might even occasionally stop me missing the train. I appeal to Ministers to support this project.
Mr Speaker
Let us come to Minister Greenwood, even though I have been tempted to say that I hope it is not another 22 years before we discuss this again with a Campbell-Savours.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on securing today’s debate on the A66 northern trans-Pennine project, and I thank him for his powerful arguments. It has been some time since I travelled on the A66, which tells me that it is time for a trip to the Lake district sometime soon—although I will be rather wary now about how much time to allow for that journey.
My hon. Friend has been an incredibly determined campaigner for this project, which runs through part of his constituency. As he acknowledged, we have already met to discuss the importance of the project to the region, and indeed its wider national significance. He has written to me to reiterate its value to business users, including freight, and highlighted the need to address safety concerns, which I take very seriously, as does the Secretary of State.
Although the Chamber is rather empty this evening, I am pleased to take the opportunity to thank other right hon. and hon. Members with constituencies along the route, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for their correspondence and for our meetings to discuss their aspirations for the A66. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway and others that they have convinced Ministers of the overwhelming local support for this important project.
Rebuilding Britain means modernising our transport infrastructure. This Government will maintain and renew our road network to ensure that it serves all users, remains safe and tackles congestion. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, the financial inheritance that this Government received is extremely challenging. Communities up and down the country have been given hope for new transport infrastructure with no plans and no funds to deliver them. We will not repeat that mistake.
This Government will rebuild our economic foundations while restoring transparency and public trust. That is why on 30 July 2024 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a multi-year spending review. But let me be absolutely clear: the A66 project is being considered as part of the second phase, which will conclude on 11 June. A decision on the A66 cannot be taken separately from that process, and whatever has been claimed by other local politicians, I can assure my hon. Friend that the project has not been shelved.
The spending review will support the development of our new long-term strategy for transport, developing a modern and integrated network with people at its heart. Within the north of England, the A66 link between the M6 at Penrith and the A1(M) at Scotch Corner is a key artery in our strategic road network, providing a vital east-west connection across the Pennines. It links ports on the east coast of England with north-west England, southern Scotland and ferry links to Northern Ireland. The nearest alternative east-west motorway is the M62, which is much further south, and, looking northwards, the M8 in Scotland. Today the A66 between the M6 and the A1(M) is approximately 50 miles long and a mixture of single and dual carriageways. Approximately half of the route has already been dualled, leaving six sections of single carriageway to be upgraded.
National Highways notes that collision rates on the single carriageway sections tend to be higher than on the dualled sections and, tragically, a number of lives have been lost on the route in recent years. More than 22% of the vehicles on the route are goods vehicles, which is approximately twice the average proportion of such vehicles on the strategic road network as a whole. As my hon. Friend knows, the A66 is a vital link for people living along the route, enabling them to reach shops, services and employment in nearby towns. For many living along the route, there is no alternative rail connection.
Upgrading the trans-Pennine A66 would enable traffic to flow more quickly. The scheme would make the A66 a more viable option for freight operators as they move goods across the country, aiding economic growth. As my hon. Friend noted, the economic case for the scheme could be improved if higher values for the freight value of time were included in the transport analysis guidance. We aim to do that in the future, but I am pleased to be able to assure him that the economic assessment of this project for spending review deliberations included a sensitivity test to show the impacts of using higher values for freight value of time. Dualling the remaining sections would make the route more resilient when incidents occur, as most collisions would be confined to one carriageway, allowing traffic to pass on the other—although we would of course prefer that there were no collisions at all.
My final point on the A66 northern trans-Pennine project is that National Highways estimates that the scheme could support the building of thousands of houses and the creation of thousands of jobs as part of growth deals and local plans along the route. It could also support Carlisle’s planned St Cuthbert’s garden village—an ambitious proposal to provide 10,000 new homes and create economic opportunities.
Until the conclusion of the spending review, the interim settlement is the framework for the £4.8 billion investment for National Highways for the current financial year. The investment includes more than £3 billion for capital enhancements, including the A66 northern trans-Pennine scheme. This is a one-year settlement while we prepare to return to the road investment strategy settlements in a sustainable way.
The A66 northern trans-Pennine project is being considered alongside other future road projects as part of the spending review. Until that concludes, the Department is not in a position to make a judgment on individual schemes, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department is committed to putting transport at the heart of this mission-driven Government. I am determined to ensure that we build the transport infrastructure needed to drive economic growth and opportunity in every part of the country, including the rural north.
I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing this debate, and thank him for the important contribution he has made. I hope that he is reassured that the Department fully appreciates the proposal’s importance to his constituents, to people in other constituencies along the route and to the wider country, and that the scheme is being considered carefully. I thank him again for this debate.
Question put and agreed to.