West Coast Main Line
Connor Naismith Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the West Coast Mainline.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate. As I look around the room, I see a large number of MPs from different parts of the country, reflecting the significance and length of this stretch of railway. However, it is clear that the line faces critical problems both now and in the future, as I hope to outline in the debate.
For me and, I imagine, many of the other MPs here, “critical problems” on the west coast main line are experienced by each of us, and indeed many of our constituents, every day. As fate would have it, in the very week when I have secured this debate, the west coast main line was affected by a day of disruption yesterday that impacted my journey to Westminster from Crewe, with issues between Stoke-on-Trent and Rugby affecting the line all day. Indeed, a meeting I was due to have earlier this afternoon was disrupted because the person I was due to meet could not get here on time.
In case Members were not already aware, the west coast main line is the beating heart of our national rail network. It runs 400 miles from Edinburgh and Glasgow, through Crewe and all the way to London Euston. It links the south-east to the north-west, Wales and Scotland. Not only does it serve more than 75 million passengers a year, but more than 40% of the UK’s rail freight moves along the route. That is nothing short of seismic—a point expanded on brilliantly in the Aslef trade union “Rail Freight Future” campaign, which I am proud to support. Outside of London, it is probably the UK’s most important rail line, and it is the busiest mixed-use railway in Europe, but unfortunately it has been left with no strategic vision or plan for future capacity shortages.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; we sometimes share journeys to and from Westminster. The whole point of High Speed 2 was to relieve capacity on the west coast main line from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, yet my constituents have suffered through years of endless delays and disruption because of HS2’s shocking mismanagement by successive Conservative Governments. Expanding villages in my constituency cannot be served by the line because of continual failure, and passengers are still stuck on overcrowded trains. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is simply not good enough and that the future of the west coast main line must ensure our constituents can travel without constant disruption and overcrowding?
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the primary purpose of HS2, on which I will expand later, was to deliver much-needed capacity on the line. Unfortunately, the Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government a worst-of-all-worlds situation in which we are not delivering on the capacity benefits that HS2 was due to provide while also leaving residents on safeguarded land with a lack of certainty and, in many respects, failing services. That is simply intolerable, so my hon. Friend is right to highlight it.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; I too travel on the west coast main line. Does he agree that there is a common public misconception that HS2 was just about faster train journeys to London, when in reality it was about capacity issues? Does he also agree that the project should have started in the north, where the need is the greatest, so scrapping phases 2a and 2b to Manchester has robbed our region of the chance to improve local services, to support freight and to deliver the levelling up we were promised?
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend is correct. It is fair to say that “High Capacity 2” would not have had the same ring to it as High Speed 2, which is potentially why we have ended up with the situation we are in, but she is absolutely right that capacity was the main benefit. The cancellation of the project north of Birmingham exacerbates the sense that we can deliver major infrastructure projects in London and the south-east, but it is always the north that loses out when it comes to decisions about cost savings.
Outside of London, the west coast main line is probably the most important rail line in the UK. Covid provided a brief respite for capacity challenges, but passenger numbers are already back at 98% of pre-covid levels and are growing at 13% annually.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate. Many people in Chester South and Eddisbury rely on the west coast main line, but unless they have a car it is a real challenge for them to reach a station easily and join the line, because there is a lack of public transport options. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need not only to promote the west coast main line and improve capacity, but to recognise that plenty needs to be done locally to support transport and connectivity within Cheshire, so that our constituents can benefit from the national links that the west coast main line offers?
Connor Naismith
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; it is an understated point, but connectivity is the lifeblood of our economy. If someone cannot get from A to B, they cannot access the opportunities on offer. As well as improving key arterial rail routes like the west coast main line, we need to see local services to smaller stations improve.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend will know, Stoke-on-Trent sits on a side branch of the west coast main line that feeds a conurbation of over 400,000 people, many of whom work in and travel regularly to Manchester, London or Birmingham. Does he agree that any future development of the line must not impact negatively on direct services from Stoke-on-Trent to London and from Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester, which previous plans for HS2 threatened?
Connor Naismith
I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be in the business of improving services for our constituents, so we must, wherever possible, ensure that we protect direct services in whatever plans we bring forward in the future.
The challenge is clear, because the west coast main line is statistically the least reliable railway in Britain, with fewer than 50% of the trains running on time—a situation that will only get worse.
Connor Naismith
I am spoilt for choice, but I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman first.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is making an important speech and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. On reliability, I understand that there are 2,639 railway stations in the United Kingdom. The fifth least reliable of them is Oxenholme and the third least reliable is Penrith. Obviously, they have one thing in common, apart from serving my constituency, which is that they are both north of Preston. The hon. Gentleman might know that Avanti has a habit whereby if there is anything wrong with the line north of Preston, everything stops at Preston, even if the issue is in Scotland. Does he agree that that is wrong? Does he also agree that although Avanti should rightly be held to account for making such decisions, it is not all Avanti’s fault, because it is often down to the fact that the rail track itself is not properly maintained and there has not been enough investment in it? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that should also be a priority for the Government?
Connor Naismith
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I do not often have to travel north to his constituency on the railway, but I have heard from several colleagues about the particular issues on that part of the line. He is absolutely right that although we should hold the operators to account, Network Rail needs to address key infrastructure issues.
Wendy Morton
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman having allowed the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) to intervene first, given that the latter is fortunate enough to have a train station on his patch!
You may wonder, Dr Murrison, why I am here for this debate when normally I am campaigning for Aldridge station, but connectivity is the point. We are talking about infrastructure and how we can make our railways much more reliable. We recently had the re-announcement of the funding for the midlands rail hub, which is welcome. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful now to fully understand the timeline for that, and whether the whole project will be fully funded? That will have a big impact on my constituency, as and when the Mayor allows us to have our train station in Aldridge—when he gives us the money—and we will see a much broader improvement in infrastructure, capacity and speed.
Connor Naismith
I am pleased to hear that we have cross-party support for the crucial improvements for the midlands rail hub that were announced at the spending review. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of the detail that the right hon. Member asked for.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
First, the Minister of State in the House of Lords made it clear yesterday that since the cancellation of HS2, there is no plan for capacity. Does my hon. Friend agree that there must soon be a plan to increase capacity, preferably based on something like HS2?
Secondly, the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about trains being cancelled north of Preston is true, but although I am sure he did not mean to do so, he seemed to be letting Avanti off the hook. We should remember that not only is Avanti taking many millions of pounds out of the public purse, but it has been caught on tape laughing at the public purse and saying how easy it is to rip off the Exchequer. The sooner Avanti is taken out of the system, even before there are capacity increases, I am sure it will benefit all of us who travel on the route.
Connor Naismith
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s plan to bring our railway into public ownership, and hope to see the west coast main line brought into public ownership soon.
Connor Naismith
I am going to make some progress.
The recent report “Research on Long-Term Passenger Demand Growth”, commissioned by the Railway Industry Association, illustrates that rail passenger volumes could grow by between at least 37% and by up to 97% by 2050. Under any scenario, rail demand in the UK will grow beyond today’s network, but capacity is not merely a future issue; it sits in our in-tray as a problem that needs solving today. As recently as 3 July, the Office of Rail and Road rejected three open access applications for the west coast main line, citing concerns about capacity.
I think the issues are generally well understood, but perhaps the elephant in the room in terms of the capacity challenges on the west coast main line—it has been touched on already—is the 2023 decision to cancel HS2 phase 2. As has been said, the primary benefit of HS2, despite its unfortunate name, was never speed; it was always about relieving capacity on the west coast main line. That single decision by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), then Prime Minister, in a hotel room in Manchester, blew a hole in the UK’s approach to addressing future passenger demand on this key UK rail network artery. I urge the Government to make addressing that problem a priority.
The Government have been clear that they are reviewing options in this policy area. HS2 Ltd has a new chief executive, Mark Wild, who is charged with getting phase 1 of the project back on track. He is expected to report on those plans by the end of the year. If Mr Wild can demonstrate that he has addressed the company’s previous failings and that he has a credible plan to deliver phase 1 on time and on budget, the Government should reconsider extending the line north of Birmingham under that new leadership.
Alternatively, I again press the Government to look carefully at the proposals developed by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham; the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker; and Arup and other stakeholders, namely the midlands-north west rail link. Their report estimates that the plan could deliver 85% of the benefits of HS2 phase 2 at approximately 60% to 75% of the cost, and that private finance could be leveraged to deliver the project. Crucially, the plan could save the taxpayer approximately £2 billion in costs from the HS2 phase 2 cancellation, through the reuse of much of the land, powers and design work that have already been secured through public investment.
A further option would be to look at remodelling existing stations and investing in infrastructure to relieve capacity problems. Crewe station, for example, causes one of the biggest bottlenecks on the west coast main line. It is recognised that the existing station infrastructure will not keep up with the forecast growth in passenger demand. Among its challenges is the fact that Crewe has a series of unevenly allocated platforms, many undersized for modern, 400-metre-long trains, because the station—which I remind colleagues is a key strategic hub on our rail network—has seen little investment since the 1980s. Yet plans for a new station were shelved with the loss of HS2 and the investment that was to come alongside it. They could be picked back up if the Government wished to do so. Indeed, Cheshire East council still owns the land that it purchased around the station to facilitate that development. A new station could also support wider employment, regeneration and housing needs. Overhauling Crewe station would provide more reliable services between the north-west and the south-west, while also providing more options into Wales.
It would be welcome if the Government committed to improving capacity on the west coast main line. The benefits of improving the route will be felt not only on our railways but on our motorways, in our carbon footprint and in our national growth. Something not always considered when talking about the need for better rail services is the knock-on for freight, car and air travel. Upgrading the main line would enable the Government to hit their target of 75% growth for rail freight. As a result of more freight on the main line, there will be less congestion on our motorways, making them greener and allowing for quicker journey times, while freeing up domestic air travel.
Failure to do anything is simply not an option, so I politely ask the Minister, what will the Government do to flesh out the options that they are considering? When will they produce a plan to tackle this problem? Something has to be done urgently. There is wide-ranging consensus, at least from the conversations that I have had with industry figures, rail operators, trade unions and experts, that doing nothing cannot be an option on the table. I urge the Minister once again to give the west coast main line the attention that it so clearly needs. Let us improve the main line, let us rebuild Crewe station, and let us show people across the north-west that this Government care about their future.
Connor Naismith
I thank all Members who spoke in the debate. There are too many to mention individually, so I am grateful that the Minister did it for me. It is fair to say that we represent a wide variety of areas, but most particularly those areas suffering most acutely from the capacity issues that have been well outlined in today’s debate.
We heard about structural issues with stations and rail lines, such as those affecting Crewe station, and about the need to hold operators to account for delivering the better routes, fares and services that our constituents desperately want to see. I do not want to be over-prescriptive, but a number of hon. Members and I have suggested some solutions that I urge the Minister and the Rail Minister to factor into their thinking.
I thank the Minister for engaging constructively with the substance of the debate, and I look forward to seeing more detail of the Government’s plans to address the challenges facing this key route, which have been outlined today. I am sure that she heard loud and clear the case that has been made by several hon. Members, and I will continue to press the importance of this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the West Coast Mainline.
Condition of Roads: Cheshire
Connor Naismith Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Aphra Brandreth
That is exactly the point I am making—the hon. Gentleman says it very well. As I outline the issue in more detail, I urge the Minister to consider how local authorities might be encouraged to take a more strategic, preventive approach. I have lost count of the number of times that frustrated residents have asked me why a white circle of paint has been drawn around one pothole, while another right next to it is left untouched because it does not meet the criteria for repair. We all know that within a week or two a team will have to return to fix the one that was missed.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The hon. Member—my constituency neighbour—talks about residents. Does she agree that it is often our residents who know their areas best, because they live and breathe them every day? They are residents such as those on East Avenue in Weston, who I consulted widely over road repairs and traffic-calming measures, or those from Stewart Street in Crewe, which is a key arterial road that has been neglected for some time. Does she agree that our residents should be listened to as part of any plans to repair our roads?
Aphra Brandreth
The hon. Member makes an important point. This is about voicing the views of residents, and they know their area best. Residents have seen how a short-term mindset has consequences. The condition of our roads is worsening, and the national repair backlog has grown, from estimates of between £7.6 billion and £11.7 billion in 2019, to over £15 billion today. That backlog in road repairs has rightly been called a “national embarrassment”, and it is a sign that the system we have in place is simply not working.
During her time on the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) rightly made the case for a more strategic approach to road repair and maintenance, alongside greater funding certainty and a simplified allocation process. I echo those calls today, both to the Minister and to Cheshire West and Chester council and Cheshire East council. This is not a partisan point—I know that Members across the House share frustrations with how local authorities manage road repairs. My intention is to offer a constructive perspective on how we might improve things in my constituency and across the country.
Cheshire is the best county to drive through. We have outstanding countryside, beautiful villages and scenic routes, but what should be a pleasure is too often spoiled by potholes. In my constituency, where public transport is minimal and key amenities such as a GP or post office are often too far to reach without a car, that is not just an inconvenience but a real barrier to daily life. Businesses depend on those roads, and crumbling surfaces damage vehicles, endanger road users, and hold back our local economy.
Road and Rail Projects
Connor Naismith Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Heidi Alexander
I would be very happy to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for the Future of Roads to take that meeting as I suspect that she will be closer to some of the detail of the work that National Highways is doing.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcements that will see improvements in the performance on the west coast main line, particularly as they come during the week where, in my constituency and in many others, we celebrated Crewe Day, which commemorates the anniversary almost 200 years ago when the first rail service passed through the now strategic rail hub of Crewe. But can the Secretary of State outline how this funding will be used to ensure that freight growth targets can be met on the west coast corridor, and tell us whether new routes, such as the midlands north-west rail link are being considered to support this ambition?
Heidi Alexander
I shall write to my hon. Friend about the detail of the midlands north-west rail link. As we establish Great British Railways, we will be placing a duty on the new organisation, which will be the publicly owned organisation to bring together the management of track and train, to increase the amount of freight that we transport on the railways. We do need to get lorries off the road and move more goods on the rail network. It is a strategic objective for me and my Department to make sure that we are maximising the amount of freight that we can transport on the rail network, while also delivering excellent passenger services.
Transport Connectivity: North-west England
Connor Naismith Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate. Good transport links are a vital component of any economy that aspires to achieve economic growth and good opportunities for its citizens. There is simply no point in having a job for every person if those people cannot physically get to where those jobs are.
In the time that I have, I will focus my remarks on rail. If Heathrow is a hub for aviation in the south, from which investment and growth ripple outwards, Crewe station is that hub for rail in the north. Crewe provides 360° connectivity to all major cities across the UK, and that unrivalled connectivity makes it a vital hub for both passenger and freight rail. It is uniquely positioned as a gateway to the midlands engine, the northern powerhouse, Scotland and Wales. However, the west coast main line, a vital artery for our region, has been grappling with significant capacity challenges. Reports have shown that
“There is no available capacity without significantly impacting performance and causing a reduction in timetable resilience”—
something that I believe every Member in this place experiences, perhaps weekly. That leaves little room for additional services, causing frequent delays. The impact of lack of capacity on rail services affects every single one of our constituencies, and the capacity for economic growth that that additional capacity could unlock cannot be understated.
We simply require new infrastructure in our region to tackle that problem. The Conservative Government’s approach to infrastructure was nothing short of Jekyll and Hyde, with communities and industries not knowing whether they were coming or going. We saw a stop-start approach to major projects, with promises made and then broken, dither and delay and a lack of active oversight, which saw costs spiral. The management of and the decision to cancel HS2 phase 2a is a prime example of that. The cancellation has not only undermined the promise of greater connectivity for northern towns and cities, but has left a gaping hole in our region’s economic growth prospects.
Ahead of the comprehensive spending review, Ministers are looking carefully at the situation the Government have inherited. It would be remiss of me not to once again ask the Government whether they would consider how new infrastructure connecting the midlands and the north of England, utilising Crewe station, with the right investment, could be a key driver for connectivity and growth in any plans to address the capacity challenges that I have outlined.
It is absolutely clear to me that better connectivity between our towns and villages and major cities in the north can be a major lever in our efforts to create those opportunities that our people need and deserve to fulfil their potential, and that is what people elected a Labour Government to do.
Crewe Railway Station
Connor Naismith Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to address this House on an issue that I am no stranger to. I want to speak today to recognise the importance of Crewe railway station not just to my constituents, but to the entirety of Cheshire East, north-west England and the nation as a whole.
Crewe station has been a linchpin of the UK rail network. It is one of the only train stations in the country that provides 360° connectivity that is unparalleled in its scope and criticality to the region. The station has 12 platforms, over 3 million passengers pass through annually, and more than 2,000 trains use the station each week. It is incredible to look at the connections and destinations we can travel to from Crewe. Passengers can directly travel to Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, London, Cardiff, Glasgow, Edinburgh and countless other destinations.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
One destination that people cannot currently get to from Crewe is Middlewich in my constituency. Middlewich is about eight and a half miles from Crewe, and its population has increased by 1,000 over the past 10 years and now stands at around 14,500. Indeed, it is the largest town in Cheshire without a railway station. Does my hon. Friend agree that as Network Rail reviews and renews the infrastructure around Crewe, provision needs to be made for additional capacity for future services, including to Middlewich?
Connor Naismith
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a strong case for his constituents in Middlewich.
Connor Naismith
It is fair to say that the opportunities that opening the station of Middlewich would present to the country and to Cheshire are exciting.
Crewe station is a genuine strategic asset for local and national infrastructure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Does he not agree that to meet carbon targets, connectivity is essential, and rail is needed as an integrated part of that plan? That, as well as subsequent upgrades to existing stations and frequent bus links to rail stations, all must be part of the net zero conversation.
Connor Naismith
It would not be an Adjournment debate in this place without an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, and he is correct. I will go on to say a little more about the importance of rail to our climate objectives.
The significance of Crewe train station goes beyond its enormous benefit to the rail network. It provides and has provided in its lifetime critical economic benefits.
Rachel Taylor
My hon. Friend often shares that wait at Euston station, waiting for the screen to turn from blue to green when getting on the train to Crewe, which also stops at Atherstone in my constituency. My constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth have had to bear the brunt of the works digging the tunnel through from Birmingham to link HS2 to the north. Does he agree that linking the HS2 network all the way to Crewe is essential for opening up economic prosperity to that area? That will make the heartache worth while for my constituents.
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I completely agree that connecting phase 1 of HS2 up to Crewe is crucial, if we are to see the real economic benefits of that project.
Aphra Brandreth
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this Adjournment debate, and he is speaking well on this important topic. We are constituency neighbours, and while Crewe station is in his constituency, it provides vital transport links and an important boost to the local economy for many people living in my constituency. Does he agree that Crewe station is in urgent need of upgrades and that, in the light of the cancellation of phase 2 of HS2—assuming that is happening—we have an opportunity to improve existing infrastructure, such as electrifying the track between Crewe and Chester? That would do so much to benefit my constituents and pave the way for the reopening of Beeston and Tarporley station.
Connor Naismith
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and for bringing the opportunity to work on a cross-party basis across Cheshire and the wider area to secure key benefits for our constituents. She is absolutely right to say that electrification of the line from Crewe to Chester would be transformative. It could deliver an additional £25 billion in gross value added and create more than 70,000 jobs over the next 20 years. Those are crucial benefits.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I have the pleasure of being the constituency neighbour of both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). My hon. Friend has touched on the communities who benefit from Crewe station, including those from Madeley, Balterley and Betley, and many of my Newcastle-under-Lyme constituents use Crewe on a daily basis. Indeed, when Avanti chooses to mess up its timetable, I have to go to Crewe when I am going home.
As my hon. Friend has touched on HS2, does he agree that rebuilding trust will be really important? Many of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, as in Stoke-on-Trent South, have faced the brunt of the failures of HS2 to date, and many people have waited many years for compensation. So as we look to have this conversation, trust and restoring trust must be at its heart.
Connor Naismith
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right to point out some of the negative impacts of the HS2 project on his constituents and, indeed, some of my constituents. It is right that the Government have taken the necessary steps to get the mismanagement of the project under control. It is right that they continue to do that and fully engage with those negatively impacted so far.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend knows, Stoke-on-Trent sits on an offshoot of the west coast main line and provides a vital east-west link between Crewe and Derby, which also requires electrification. Does he agree that previous HS2 plans severely reduced services through Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, and that any future developments must not negatively impact this vital region for growth?
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. That is why it is crucial that those of us who are impacted by HS2 and the discussion around improved future rail infrastructure work together to get the best possible alternative plan on the table and being looked at.
I will make some progress. Within my constituency, Crewe station has strong ties to engineering and advanced manufacturing firms such Bentley and Alstom in Crewe. In the surrounding regions, many businesses exist because of the opportunities that Crewe railway station provides, enabling supply chains and employment opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach and ensuring the growth of local businesses.
Crewe railway station serves as a vital node along the west coast main line, which connects London to the midlands, the north-west and Scotland. Approximately 75% of all freight trains that use the west coast main line pass through Crewe. Again, that is testament to the paramount nature of the station.
However, while I speak openly about the amazing things that Crewe station offers to transport connectivity and our economy across the country, it is clear to both residents and experts that it faces significant challenges. The catchment area around Crewe station is seeing rapid growth because of its connectivity to major economic centres in the UK.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
My constituents in Alsager, Holmes Chapel, Sandbach and the surrounding villages either drive directly to Crewe or take trains and transfer there. Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituents, like his, want more reliable journeys through an improved station and, moreover, that better transport links could bring economic growth for passengers and others?
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend is quite correct, and do not let anybody tell hon. Members that I secured the debate on narrow constituency interests. The fact that Crewe is such a central hub for connectivity means that better connections from Crewe station mean better connections for people living in Sandbach, Holmes Chapel, Alsager and others, since they are largely travelling via Crewe for major journeys. [Interruption.] Indeed, Newcastle-under-Lyme as well.
The challenges in terms of Crewe station are significant. We see growth in population due to the station’s links to those major economic centres. Its platforms are too few and too narrow to cope with projected future demand. On top of that, the entrances have limited space, and there are often leaks in the roofs, which do not cover entire platforms. Indeed, we saw an example of that on social media just before Christmas when one of the roofs caved in and there was water pouring through the ceiling, which the staff had to collect in buckets. Crewe rightly boasts of its position as a rail hub, but the condition of the station is ill befitting as a front door to a town with such a rich rail heritage.
Andrew Cooper
My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. He makes an excellent point about the state of Crewe station. I have spoken to business leaders who had been considering investing in Cheshire but have been put off by the sheer dilapidation of the station. Does he agree that, given that HS2 appears not to be coming to Crewe, we must not wait to invest in the station and bring it up to a 21st century standard?
Connor Naismith
I agree. I described the station as the front door to Crewe, but it is also the shop window for investment due to the rail heritage in the town. It is important that we use the station as an advert for jobs and investment across the town and the wider region. Whether or not HS2 ultimately comes to Crewe, that will be an important issue.
The ability of Crewe station to act as a critical transport hub has been constrained by the challenges that I have described. Even Network Rail has identified the need to improve platform capacity and length to accommodate modern stock and address concerns about accessibility and integration with other modes of transport. The challenges that Crew station faces to function effectively also limit capacity on the west coast main line, so its limitations have a cascading effect on the entire rail network, reducing reliability and increasing journey times.
The plans for HS2 would have seen Crewe form a central cog in phase 2a, connecting high-speed rail in Birmingham to the wider network as a key interchange. Projections suggested that doing so could support the creation of 100,000 jobs and provide billions to the regional economy in the short term, not to mention the logistical benefits for rail operators.
It is no secret that my view is that the last Government botched the job, as they did in so many areas. That left many communities across the north of England—perhaps none more so than the one I am proud to represent—demoralised and disillusioned that they had been left behind once again. The last Government’s decision has also meant that the modernisation of Crewe station has been put on hold, which raises even more questions about its future. It is not just Crewe station but the rail infrastructure in our country that, unfortunately, is not up to standard. That will only be exacerbated as time ticks on without crucial investment.
I am thankful to Network Rail, alongside Siemens, for recently completing a £190 million overhaul of signalling around the station over the Christmas period, for the benefit of the wider west coast main line. However, I truly believe that there is a need to go further. Should the Government not commit to phase 2, they should at least consider the many outstanding alternatives that organisations have put forward, and the position of Crewe within those plans. Projects such as Growth Track 360 and the Midlands-North West rail link are two vital pieces of work that recognise the need to invest in our railways for growth across the region, and Crewe features as an integral part of both proposals.
Investing in rail goes beyond the economic benefits, despite their substantial nature. It is also about addressing the climate crisis, getting cars and heavy goods vehicles off the road and getting modern electrified rail lines to create a transport system that is fit for the future. In 2022-23, rail contributed 1.3% of the UK’s total emissions from transport, but represented a proportionately overwhelming 9% of all passenger kilometres travelled.
Furthermore, a journey from London to Glasgow by train uses less than a third of the kilograms of CO2 of petrol cars, and around a sixth of the CO2 of the equivalent journey by aeroplane. Transport in total accounts for 27% of all greenhouse gas emissions—the largest contributor in our society—and shifting journeys from road to rail can play a crucial role in the Government meeting their climate targets. Rail travel is one of the most sustainable forms of transport. By investing in Crewe, we can invest in the electrification of the line and a green future for local transport.
I thank the House for listening to my speech and for listening to me sing the praises of my constituency’s rail heritage. I offer my apologies for bending the Minister’s ear on the subject once again, but I truly believe that transport, particularly rail, will be a central part of any effort to boost economic growth in the north. I am certain that my constituency is ready and waiting to play an active role in that.
I firmly believe that Crewe station is a national treasure. Despite the short-term constraints on public finances, which are absolutely clear and which I fully appreciate, I hope that Ministers see that, too. I gently urge the Government to recognise how critical this station could be for future infrastructure projects and alternatives to the northern leg of HS2, which can bring vast benefits to regional economic growth and improvements both to rail connectivity and to infrastructure.
The Government must take decisive action to secure the future of rail in our country. Crewe station has been the beating heart of our rail network for almost 200 years. I ask the Minister to ensure that that remains the case.
Oral Answers to Questions
Connor Naismith Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I have received several representations about its impact on drivers who use the Dartford crossing. It is essential that when errors occur they are cleared up quickly, and with compassion for those affected. I expect National Highways to work with its service providers at the Dartford crossing to ensure that that happens, and my hon. Friend the Minister for the future of roads has been holding National Highways to account. My officials are continuing to work with National Highways to drive down incorrect penalty charge notices and provide much better support to customers.
Connor Naismith
The Labour mayors Andy Burnham and Richard Parker are developing proposals for a new rail link between Birmingham and Manchester. What engagement has the Department had with the mayors and investors in relation to this project, and does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a key transport hub, Crewe must be at the heart of any future rail infrastructure connecting the north and the midlands?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend has consistently stood up for Crewe in the wake of the cancellation of HS2. Crewe was particularly badly hit by that announcement. I was pleased to meet with Mayors Burnham and Parker this week to discuss their proposals to address the capacity and connectivity issues north of Birmingham, and I will continue to engage with all relevant stakeholders on this topic.
Bus Funding
Connor Naismith Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman raises some important points. It is right that local people have the mechanisms and ability to hold their local authorities to account. One such mechanism that we will introduce through the better buses Bill is a local network safeguard, which will ensure that the voices of communities and constituents are at the heart of any changes to local bus networks.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Some £5.4 million will be delivered for buses in my area, which is a significant increase in real terms on previous years. When I met the chief executive of my local chamber of commerce, he said that the biggest barrier to growth in our area was poor public transport. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this investment, as well as the Government’s proposed reforms, are crucial if we are to break down barriers to opportunity and grow our economy?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This Government have put improving public transport at the heart of our priorities in order to deliver growth and allow people to access opportunity. Colleagues from across the House will recognise the picture he painted because, time and again, they will hear that the biggest barrier many businesses face to widening their labour market and ensuring people can access opportunity is poor local transport. That is why we are so delighted to announce this transformational funding.
Bus Franchising
Connor Naismith Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Lightwood
I agree with my hon. Friend. I was pleased to visit a municipal bus company in Nottingham; the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), represents that area. I was blown away by the company’s knowledge of and commitment to the local area, and its having received numerous awards, with a satisfaction rating of something like 89%. Municipal bus companies are also a fantastic option for local authorities to consider.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
It was interesting to hear the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson talk about the importance of preserving existing bus routes, when their party had presided over 14 years when thousands of bus services were lost to communities across the country, including in my constituency, where we still do not have a direct bus route from Nantwich to our local hospital. It has taken this Government just 10 weeks to present a plan to fix local bus services. Does that not epitomise how underserved our communities and local economies have been by 14 long years of Conservative government?
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
It was great to visit the First Bus all-electric depot in York the other week, but I was saddened to hear just days later that First had withdrawn children’s monthly bus passes. After meeting representatives of the company, they are reviewing that decision, but does my hon. Friend agree that travel to and from school should be affordable? Will he meet me to discuss the future of buses in York?
Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill
Connor Naismith ExcerptsMonday 29th July 2024
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 View all Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Thank you for the opportunity to make my maiden speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I congratulate you on your election? I am particularly proud to be able to make my maiden speech in a debate on rail, as the Member of Parliament for a constituency with railways literally woven into its DNA.
The town of Crewe grew up around the railway station, and the development of Crewe and the rail network went hand in hand in the 19th century. My constituents will be delighted to have a Government committed to delivering a publicly owned and passenger-focused railway, the need for which hit home to me only too well when the former shadow Rail Minister was severely delayed on the rail network when visiting my constituency late last year.
I cannot begin to talk about the history of elected representation in Crewe and Nantwich without making reference to the towering figure that is the late Gwyneth Dunwoody. Still today, I meet people whose lives have been touched by Gwyneth’s unmistakable ability to fight for her constituents’ interests. She was truly fierce—an excellent parliamentarian and public servant.
I would also like to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Kieran Mullan, who has gone to great lengths to demonstrate his commitment to our democracy—approximately 250 miles, in fact, from Crewe to Bexhill! The now hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle did a great deal to champion the cause of the many volunteer groups across my constituency in his time as its MP. I thank him for that and congratulate him on taking up his place on the shadow Transport team.
I love the place that I have been sent here to represent, from the major towns of Crewe and Nantwich to the beautiful villages and parishes like Shavington, Haslington, Wistaston, Willaston and Rope, among others. Crewe is a fantastic town, where I am proud to live with my family. It is the gateway to the north and a key rail interchange with a proud history of train manufacturing in Crewe Works, which once employed over 20,000 people. I believe strongly that rail can be pivotal to Crewe’s future, as well as its past, and I intend to be a strong advocate for improved transport infrastructure connecting the north and the midlands, with Crewe at its heart.
It is not just trains that run through my constituency; so does a belief in the importance of employment rights and trade unionism. At the tail end of the 19th century, the suffragist and pioneering campaigner for the rights of women workers, Ada Nield Chew, wrote a series of letters to the Crewe Chronicle under the pseudonym “A Crewe Factory Girl”, shining a light on poor working conditions in the factory she worked in. Many of the issues that she raised in those letters, such as insecure work, unpredictable hours, the gender pay gap, and the denial of a living wage—a phrase that she actually used all that time ago—remain all too relevant today, which is why I firmly welcome this Government’s commitment to bringing forward an employment rights Bill. I am also proud to support the campaign of Kate Blakemore in my constituency to commission a statue for Ada in Crewe.
My constituency is also home to some of Britain’s finest sporting exports, notably through the academy of the mighty Crewe Alexandra—a famous academy that has produced some cult heroes from our national game, from David Platt to Danny Murphy and Dean Ashton. The Alex have consistently punched above their weight, and the importance of the Railwaymen—as the club is also affectionately known—was driven home to me during the election campaign, as a result of an unexpected boost to my prospects when the now Leader of the Opposition was pictured wearing a scarf of our rivals, Port Vale, on a visit to Stoke.
Nantwich is a beautiful, historic market town that sees large numbers of tourists pass through every year. Historically, it was a centre for the production of salt and the manufacture of leather goods, from which the affectionate nickname for the town’s residents, “the Dabbers”, is believed to derive. Today, Nantwich is famous for a host of civic and cultural events throughout the year, including the international cheese show, the Nantwich food festival, a jazz festival and a words and music festival, among many others. These events show the best of the community in Nantwich, often driven by volunteers and supported actively by Nantwich town council. They demonstrate what can be achieved in a modern landscape for small towns while still actively respecting our heritage.
Across Crewe and Nantwich, we have a thriving business community that is home to some of Britain’s most famous exports, from the luxury vehicles produced at Bentley Motors to the ice cream vans at Whitby Morrison, and I am immensely proud to represent a constituency that is already a pioneer of Labour’s fantastic policy to buy, make and sell British. We have beautiful green spaces and environmental gems, too, including green-flag parks such as Queens Park; that park is lovingly supported and maintained by the Friends of Queens Park group, which is led ably by Sheila, Richard and Alan, among others. We also have the River Weaver, which flows through Nantwich, and I know that my constituents—like the local women’s institute group who I joined on a demonstration recently—will rightly expect me to champion the cause of cleaning up our rivers in this Parliament. I welcome the steps that this Government have already taken to do just that.
As my colleagues will attest, it has been a long campaign during which many of us have been asked so many questions. I do not know whether to be flattered or offended that the question I was most often asked during the campaign was, “Have you finished school yet?”
Connor Naismith
Just about. But far and away the most common question was, “Why should we trust any of you?” That experience was reflected in many of my colleagues’ experiences during the campaign. In that question lies possibly the most fundamental challenge facing this Government, because after 14 years of managed decline, people no longer believe that politics can deliver anything but decline. They believe that politicians are only in it for themselves—that their attention and focus are distant from the priorities of the ordinary families they seek to represent.
I came to this place from a career with the Independent Office for Police Conduct, whose role is to independently uphold standards and ensure that the public can have confidence in the police. No doubt there is much work to do in that space, but I believe strongly that I and my colleagues from across all parties in this House have a duty to uphold standards and restore public confidence in our politics, and aspiration and opportunity to our communities.
It is sometimes claimed by the Conservative party that my party has a problem with aspiration, but I know that not to be true. My party understands that if someone is living in fear of being evicted from their home, that is a barrier to aspiration; if someone’s parents are living in in-work poverty, that is a barrier to aspiration; and if someone is unable to receive the treatment that they need if they become ill, that is a barrier to aspiration. When the Labour party is given the chance to serve the British people, it has a fine record of smashing the barriers to aspiration. It did it for a working-class kid like me, and it will do so again—I am confident of that.
For that reason, I wholeheartedly welcome the Prime Minister’s belief that politics is about service, and his commitment to lead a Government who focus relentlessly on delivering for people by putting country first, party second. I promise to always do my best to serve and represent my constituents in that spirit for as long as they trust me to do so.
