Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme
Tuesday, 13 October 2026
Contributions
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)Scottish National Party
Bradley Thomas will move the motion and I will call the Minster to respond. I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)Conservative
I beg to move, That this House has considered the Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. The Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme—BREP—is a niche topic for Westminster Hall. I am here because Bromsgrove is suffering under the chaos of BREP and the mismanagement of its delivery. To provide some background, Bromsgrove is a busy commuter town in the West Midlands with two motorways, the M42 and the M5, running through it. That is crucial for context because, when the M5 is congested and snarled up, the A38 running through Bromsgrove—the route affected by BREP—becomes a pressure release valve. As a result, Bromsgrove suffers additional congestion once all that traffic is displaced from the motorway and running around the town. I would argue that the A38 running through Bromsgrove is a part of our key national infrastructure, given the role that it plays in alleviating pressure on the M5. Bromsgrove is currently seeing investment to the tune of tens of millions of pounds into BREP, but the reality is the delivery of acute disruption to the local economy, businesses, schools and residents. Any road project will inevitably bring some degree of disruption. The folk of Bromsgrove are reasonable and expect disruption when investment takes place, but the scale is beyond anything envisaged by those living and working in the town. Crucially, it is beyond anything that Worcestershire county council appears to acknowledge in its engagement with me or local residents. Accepting that work has to take place does not mean accepting endless delays, lack of accountability, poor communication and date slipping, which are characteristics of the BREP work. The impact is profound, including safety concerns. Losses for businesses are particularly profound. I routinely meet and speak with businesses that quote BREP and the compounded effect of roadworks in Bromsgrove as one reason why their businesses are suffering. I note that when the BBC, ITV or other media outlets speak to local businesses, the congestion caused by BREP and other roadworks is routinely quoted. The result is severe reputational impact for Bromsgrove, which should have a vibrant economy, given its location, relative affluence of the hinterland and the connectivity the town previously enjoyed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)Democratic Unionist Party
I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is right to bring this forward. When millions of pounds of public money are committed to corridor schemes such as the Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme, we need stricter oversight to prevent administrative paralysis. The same thing happened in Northern Ireland. The Court of Appeal had to step in to greenlight the £1.7 billion A5 upgrade, a vital project that was trapped for 20 years in a web of legal and bureaucratic challenges. Is it not time that the Government ensure that when infrastructure funding is approved, red tape does not stand in the way of safety, economic growth and local commuters?
I feel that the presence of the hon. Member vindicates this debate, not because of the worthiness of the point being discussed but because he is attending a debate about something happening in Bromsgrove. He is correct and I will touch on that point shortly. The impact of the BREP works in Bromsgrove is profound. There are safety concerns, the losses for businesses that I have already spoken about, endless delays for people on routine trips, and the reputational damage to the town that I mentioned. Let us think about it—who is going about their lives in any town? There are parents wanting to take their children to school, workers driving to work, businesses reliant on deliveries and on trade, carers, and other people going about their lives, such as those needing to get to appointments, GPs or hospitals. I read a statistic that the average UK driver spends 62 hours a year stuck in traffic. Well, I can guarantee anyone who wants to listen that the figure will be a hell of a lot higher in Bromsgrove because of the BREP roadworks.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)Conservative
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for securing this incredibly important debate. When he talks about the problems in Bromsgrove, he is speaking about a wider problem for the whole of Worcestershire and, indeed, the West Midlands. He will be well aware that in Stourport, in my constituency, we have huge problems with people who do not want to be in the town trying to get through it. The Government need to step up with some major road improvements, including a Stourport relief road and a new bridge over the River Severn.
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his intervention. He is absolutely right that all our constituencies deserve investment. However, the crux of the story, which I hope will become apparent as I go through my remarks, is that when infrastructure is delivered, that must be done in a consultative way with local people and local businesses. We cannot allow the fragmentation of the state to paralyse the delivery of infrastructure projects that are so essential to our prosperity. We have businesses in Bromsgrove that are struggling in the current economic climate, regardless of BREP and the compounded effects of the roadworks. The situation is particularly acute in Bromsgrove. Having spoken to so many residents and businesspeople, I know that there is a general sentiment that those responsible for delivering the scheme—it is important to note that Worcestershire county council is the body responsible for delivering it, even though it is backed by tens of millions of pounds of central Government funding—do not care or are not listening to the voices of those who are affected by it. I fear that a long period of time will elapse before the reputation of Bromsgrove recovers, even after these works are eventually complete. Nationally, 83% of businesses claim that congestion is a problem; I can guarantee that in Bromsgrove 100% of businesses will make that claim. Nationally, 41% of businesses claim that their profitability is affected by congestion. Again, I can guarantee that practically every business in Bromsgrove will cite BREP and the compounded effect of roadworks as one of the reasons why they are struggling in an already difficult economic climate. It should not be an abstract concept for any of us to believe that it is the responsibility of the state in all its forms—including central Government, local authorities, Government agencies—to do everything possible to ease the burden of the effect of roadworks on our communities. However, I am afraid that where Worcestershire county council is concerned, I am bewildered. I have had a reasonable amount of engagement with the county council over this project but it has felt incredibly tokenistic. I have had meetings with the council to discuss different parts and different phases of the project that are being delivered. At times, I have had meetings with the council and residents to discuss specific concerns about particular parts of the project, but I am afraid that the responses are only ever tokenistic. We get responses such as “We have consulted” or “We have engaged.” Part of my conclusion can only be that the lives of some of those responsible for delivering the scheme, whether that is contractors or officers of the council, are not as affected by the scheme—perhaps because they do not live in Bromsgrove or they may not travel through the town. I fear that those taking decisions, whether on this or other aspects of investment, are far too often removed from the consequences of what they are delivering. That means that there is a real loss of the voice of the community affected in this process. To the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about the fragmentation of the state, whether we are talking about BREP or the delivery of all manner of different public goods, we too often see the delivery of projects with far too many stakeholders involved. As a consequence, there appears to be a significant lack of accountability in the process. Here we have a scheme that is largely funded by central Government. Bromsgrove would be incredibly grateful for those funds if there was a genuine sentiment that this was being delivered for the betterment of the town, but I am afraid that the patience and the good will of the public has worn thin. There is probably not much patience left to squeeze out of the very patient and dutiful residents of Bromsgrove. There is a lack of accountability, and a perception that things fall through the cracks and that if it is the responsibility of people from one body, they will tokenistically engage, but they will get on with their lives and not necessarily have to live with the consequences, while, in this case, I am afraid that the residents of Bromsgrove do. It is advertised that BREP is an enhancement, but the reality is that it has made things worse. We will wait and see at the end of the delivery of the scheme what things actually look like. However, this £40 million investment is due to improve a typical journey along the A38 by just two minutes. That is without taking into effect the 85% increase in the housing target being imposed on my constituency by the Government. That is based on infrastructure and an idea of our society that is arguably already out of date. The compounded effect of growth in future will see this BREP scheme effectively become a white elephant—a complete waste of money. That is the fear of many of my constituents, and I am afraid it is a fear and suspicion that I now share. It is a bizarre contradiction that we have this multimillion-pound investment—£40 million is not a small sum of money—and if it was spent on something that I believed was truly for the betterment of the town, I would be rejoicing at this. That £40 million could buy a lot and tangibly improve a community in so many different ways. But the question everyone is asking is, “Should it be spent for that two minutes, and will those two minutes even materialise?” I am afraid that from start to finish this entire project has been a catalogue of mismanagement and communication failures. Most of all, there has been a severe failing of all involved to really consult those who will be most affected. As is probably understood by now, my constituents are fed up. I have appealed to Worcestershire county council to halt all unnecessary roadworks that are over and above the BREP scheme. I believe that BREP should have been delivered in phases rather than there being one large scheme from start to finish. We are seeing hauliers and traffic on the M5 displaced through the town so we have additional heavy and unsafe vehicles and a larger load of traffic. That is in an already relatively crowded area of population. I have had parents get in touch with me because they are worried about the journeys that their children take, particularly if they are crossing the A38. There has been a complete mess and a confusing mix of signage and road blockages. One constituent got in touch yesterday to say that, because of an unmarked kerb, he had split his tyre, and he showed me a photograph of that. This is having a profound effect. I want to stress that I do not bring a debate of this kind to Westminster Hall or the House of Commons lightly. It is because my constituents and I really are at the end of our tether with this. I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to an 83-year-old cyclist who tragically lost his life a few weeks ago on New Road in Bromsgrove. I would like to stress I am not linking the two events, but it is unquestionable that traffic and congestion in Bromsgrove have got worse and I would like to pay tribute to him. My thoughts are very much with his family and I support the investigation of the authorities as they ascertain the facts behind what happened. Since I was elected at the general election two years ago, I have been pretty relentless in holding Worcestershire county council to account over BREP. There needs to be a much more co-ordinated approach to reduce emissions, congestion and disruption, and to minimise community impact. Instead there has been this nonsensical approach. Let me cite one example in particular that has affected many residents. We have a housing development known locally as the Oakalls and the entrance to that, Regents Park Road, is used by thousands of cars every single day. A large stretch of the road has been narrowed. I have been there multiple times and seen cars flooring it, to be frank—putting their foot down to get through the narrow junction before another vehicle appears. That has undoubtedly increased the safety concerns about that junction. As for Worcestershire county council— well, I have invited the cabinet member to come down and meet with me and residents, but I am afraid I have not had a response in the affirmative. I can only conclude that on that front that Worcestershire county council is not interested in engaging on a junction that it has changed and that is unquestionably more dangerous than it was before. My constituents are sensible people—they are prepared to put up with reasonable disruption and they expect unknown hurdles to present challenges—but their sensibleness and patience depend on mutual respect and that has been lacking, seemingly throughout the process. I just cited the lack of collaboration at Oakalls. We have recent ministerial communications, which I am grateful for, that say that the programme is now scheduled to end in early 2027, but it is important to put on the record that this BREP scheme, if it is completed by then, will have been delayed effectively twice from its original scheduled completion date. There are some things that need to be done. On 11 August I sent a letter to the Secretary of State to plead on behalf on my constituents for serious consideration to be given to asking National Highways to intervene in the scheme given the role of the A38 as a key part of our national strategic infrastructure and that pressure release valve that I described. I believe it is pretty apparent that Worcestershire county council lacks the expertise, for whatever reason: this could be a project that is just far too big for it to handle or it may have bitten off more than it can chew. There might be council officers or contractors who are not as invested in delivering a successful scheme for the town because their lives are based in other places. I suspect that that is a factor, even though that is a bold statement to make. I am grateful to the Minister for coming here today, and I reiterate my plea to him to consider engaging with National Highways on this to take the scheme under its control, and get it completed using its skills and expertise. If the Minister will not do that, I sincerely hope he will support me in gaining answers to a litany of questions—34 in fact—that I recently sent to the Secretary of State on a range of topics around how the scheme is being delivered. This is about who shoulders the burden of additional cost. My constituents want to know how far behind schedule the project is compared with the original tender. It is right that my constituents, who are also taxpayers, and the businesses that are funding the project, not just in Bromsgrove but across the country, should not shoulder burdens that have been brought about by poor contractual timekeeping. There are so many unanswered questions. I do not want to go through them all now, because I am conscious of time and want to allow the Minister to respond in what I hope will be a positive spirit. I emphasise to him that I do not come here lightly; I come here because my constituents deserve answers. I am prepared to meet him in the search for those answers and to engage with National Highways, if that would help to reach a swift, successful and efficient conclusion for the taxpayer and to get this scheme delivered once and for all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)Labour
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Wishart. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing the debate and for the determined way in which he has represented the interests of his constituents. I join him in saying how very sad it was to hear about the recent tragic road collision on the A38 that led to the death of a cyclist and my thoughts and sympathies go out to his family and friends. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the concerns that the hon. Member has raised regarding the A38 Bromsgrove route enhancement programme and its impact on residents, businesses and road users. He was right to acknowledge that such schemes will inevitably lead to some disruption, but it is clear from what he has said today that both he and his constituents have run out of patience. As the hon. Member said, the A38 acts as a key strategic link, providing access to the strategic road network as well as serving regional and local traffic. I recognise and sympathise with his comments about the road being a key pressure valve when there is disruption on the M5. My constituency is close to the motorway network and we also see the impacts when there are delays and disruptions there. As the hon. Member quite rightly pointed out, the programme has been developed and is being delivered by Worcestershire county council. It is the biggest upgrade to Bromsgrove’s local road networks in a generation. Its aims are to reduce congestion and increase journey reliability, support the delivery of housing and employment growth, and improve connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists. It is a critical investment in the town’s infrastructure and has been assessed as providing high value for money for taxpayers. The hon. Member described the scheme as excellent when it was first announced back in 2023, although from his comments I take it that he is now a little less supportive of the scheme. Whether that is entirely down to the delays or whether the benefits are not as clear to him as they were we will no doubt explore in due course. As he rightly pointed out, since the scheme was approved it has experienced a number of delays. Of course, I understand the frustrations that his constituents have experienced. The principal cause of delay on the programme has been the discovery of numerous previously uncharted utility assets along the A38 corridor, including complex gas infrastructure. The scale and complexity of these assets have required significant additional investigations and changes to designs and construction plans. As much of that work has involved third-party utility providers, it has not been wholly within the control of the county council or its contractor. As is often the case with major urban highway projects, other factors have also led to delays. Bad weather and the challenges associated with delivering work safely within a live highway environment have also constrained progress. Worcestershire county council has kept the Department updated regularly. As the hon. Member has confirmed, most elements of the programme are expected to be completed in early 2027. The Oakalls roundabout will be the final section to complete construction and the contractor’s latest plans indicate that the work there will finish in June 2027. However, the council is exploring opportunities to accelerate delivery and it is hopeful that completion of the roundabout could be brought forward to the spring. The hon. Member has raised a number of detailed concerns through correspondence, in meetings and now through this debate. Of course, I understand why he has pursued those questions on behalf of his constituents, but it is important to be clear that the responsibility for delivering the A38 programme rests with Worcestershire county council as the local highway authority. The council is therefore accountable for project governance, procurement, contractor management and delivery. The vast majority of issues raised by the hon. Member concern the day-to-day management by Worcestershire county council of the relationship with its contractor. Detailed decisions on the construction programme and the management of delays are matters for the council as the client authority and for the contractor delivering the works. The Department for Transport has provided funding and maintains appropriate oversight to ensure value for the taxpayer and that public money is spent properly. However, I need to be clear that oversight is not the same thing as management: the Department scrutinises business cases, monitoring information and assurance arrangements, but it does not manage contractors, direct operational decisions on site or act as the project manager for locally delivered schemes. The hon. Member argued that the Department or National Highways should intervene directly and assume responsibility for the project, but neither option is appropriate or, indeed, possible. National Highways is responsible for England’s strategic road network; this programme is a local authority scheme on the local road network and therefore falls outside its remit. Equally, there is no mechanism through which the Department for Transport could take over delivery of the project from Worcestershire county council.
I appreciate the Minister coming to the Chamber and responding to my points, but does he accept that this is an example of the fragmentation of the state? The public, including my constituents, are sick and tired of the idea that, “It’s not us, it’s them”. I understand and accept that Worcestershire county council is responsible for delivering the scheme and that it is funded by central Government, but is it not just another example of passing the buck to say that it is nothing to do with National Highways because it is simply a local road when I demonstrated that a key piece of national infrastructure, the M5, is affected by what is going on on this road? It is that fragmentation of the state; we have to do better.
It is not about fragmentation of the state but about letting local areas determine their own priorities and manage their own schemes. That is how local roads have always been run. I listened to what the hon. Member said about the interactions he has had with the local authority, and it seems to me that there need to be some discussions with his elected councillors about where the accountability lies, because from where we are standing, that is clearly where the question should be directed. We have looked at some of the criticisms and concerns that he raised, and an independent review of the programme was undertaken in 2025, which concluded that appropriate industry standard de-risking activities had been undertaken before construction commenced. It found that many of the delays encountered were “unavoidable” and “could not have been fully predicted in advance”. Most importantly, it concluded that the programme remains deliverable. The review also recognised that public confidence has been affected by the length of disruption and recommended improvements to communications. I understand that the council has taken on board those recommendations. The hon. Member mentioned the impact on local business, and I have raised this issue with the council directly; its representatives mentioned recent examples of work on the opening of the new Sainsbury’s and working with Avoncroft Museum to ensure that adequate signage and diversion routes are in place, so it seems that there is some progress in that direction. The council will continue to work with contractors and utility providers to address the remaining challenges. I will conclude by saying that although this is not the Department’s day-to-day responsibility, I understand the frustrations experienced by the hon. Member and his constituency’s residents, businesses and road users. The Government clearly expect Worcestershire county council, as the delivery authority, to maintain its focus on completing the remaining works, minimising disruption where possible and keeping local communities informed. The Department will continue to monitor whether the council delivers on that. It is important that we do not lose sight of the long-term benefits this investment will deliver: reduced congestion, more reliable journey times and improved connections for pedestrians and cyclists. I am happy to work with the hon. Member and the local authority to see that those benefits are delivered as soon as possible with the minimum level of disruption to his constituents. To be clear, that is not the same as the Department taking on day-to-day management of the project, and I hope that the hon. Member will understand, from what I have said, why that cannot be the case. Question put and agreed to.
← Previous
Police Funding: North-east England
Next →
Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5415323.