Train Services: Extreme Weather

Alex Easton Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point about what we need from Network Rail to ensure that the particularities of each area are taken into account. He is right that such work on resilience to climate change is needed; I hope that Network Rail will take that on board. Recently, I had a meeting with Network Rail and some of the affected passengers in my constituency, and the issue of long-term planning in the face of what we know is going to get worse and worse was part of it. I hope that the hon. Member will have a similar opportunity in his constituency.

Another question is about communication, because people can make other arrangements if they know in good time that a cancellation is happening. It is much harder when they have bought a ticket and travelled to the station to discover only then that the train is not running. Furthermore, when a service is cancelled or terminated early, replacement transport must get people to where they actually need to go.

Thankfully, we already have the diagnosis and the prescription for the Chase line; we just need the fee to dispense the cure. Back when the line was electrified, about a decade ago now, the project ran over budget and the previous Government refused to allocate additional resource; therefore, corners were cut. The track circuits, which tell the signallers where trains are on the line, were bought on the cheap. A model designed for underground railways was used and, unsurprisingly, they do not fare too well outdoors, in particular in the warmer weather. In fact, typically, they trip at any point above 24°. It goes without saying that this summer we had many days when night-time temperatures were higher than that, let alone during the day. That has led to the misery that my constituents have faced on the Chase line for successive summers. Network Rail itself tells us that a full replacement is needed.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. In my constituency, passengers on the Bangor-to-Belfast line know about disruption to do with severe weather, in particular where trees grow close to railways. Does he agree that the UK Government should work to support all relevant transport agencies—and, where relevant, the devolved institutions—to audit routes at risk from falling trees and to support prevention measures and actions before the next storms?

[Josh Newbury]

I am glad that fallen trees and leaves have been raised as an issue. We have all heard about the dreaded “leaves on the line” being the reason for service disruption. The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise it. That is an issue in all four corners of the UK, particularly as budgets have been cut and maintenance work has not always been done to the previous standard. He is absolutely right that we need to look line by line to identify where the risks are and to address the most severe ones, in particular, as he said, where trees are at risk of falling before the next season. We know that we have a stormy autumn and winter ahead, so that is a particularly poignant point. He is right that we need to look at that in the longer term as well.

My constituents faced that misery on the Chase line for successive summers, and Network Rail tells us that full equipment replacement is what we need. However, I am told that that will cost in the region of £3 million. With budgets being tight, we need the Department to support us with that essential infrastructure correction. At the moment, the alternative being looked at is a coating for the circuits, which might raise their operational temperature to about 30°. That will buy us a bit more time, but will still leave us vulnerable to major disruption next summer.

I hope that the Minister will pass this on to the noble Lord Hendy: my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), and I would heartily welcome Minister Hendy to Rugeley to discuss the challenges on the Chase line. While he is there, we should also discuss the urgent need for an accessible footbridge at Rugeley Trent Valley station. The lack of a lift is a total barrier for wheelchair users and people with limited mobility. It can also make journeys difficult for older passengers, people carrying luggage and parents with young children. I heard from an older constituent who found the stairs at Rugeley Trent Valley a barrier to visiting his family. I also heard from a passenger with severely impaired knees, who had to crawl up and down the steep footbridge just to change platforms. No one should have to face that just to catch a train.

I recognise the wider challenges taking place on our railways. London Northwestern Railway and West Midlands Railway have returned to public ownership—an important step in the Government plans for Great British Railways. I welcome the move. Bringing railways closer together, with track and train working closely, should make it easier to plan services, deal with problems and give passengers clearer accountability.

The Government have also invested in new trains and stations right across the west midlands and in the midlands rail hub. That is all really welcome progress, and I want people in Cannock Chase to benefit, too. The wider issue, however, is about the condition of our railway infrastructure and its ability to cope with more extreme weather. Network Rail’s current five-year funding period, known as control period 7, runs from 2024 to 2029. Its total funding envelope is £45.4 billion in cash terms, but inflation has put that settlement under considerable pressure.

The Office of Rail and Road reports that Network Rail now expects to deliver just 83% of its original renewals programme in England and Wales by the end of that period. It has also warned that an increasingly ageing asset base has implications for reliability, performance and safety, and that that could lead to more asset failures over time. We have heard about that from hon. Members. I recognise that the railway faces financial pressures and that difficult choices have to be made, but hotter summers and wetter winters place greater demands on our network, so it is important that we keep the renewals programme under review and ensure that essential work to protect the railway’s resilience is not lost.

The Rail Freight Group has been in touch with me to raise a concern about the Railways Bill, which is currently before Parliament. At present, Network Rail pays compensation to passenger and freight operators when services are disrupted by bad weather and other incidents, which gives it a financial reason to keep services running where possible and to get them back up quickly when things go wrong. Clause 65 would remove the requirement to pay compensation for events outside Network Rail’s control. It is not yet clear whether that includes seasonal weather, but we understand that Network Rail is considering weather-related exclusions. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify—if not this afternoon, in writing—what counts as being outside Network Rail’s control and when we can expect that to be defined. If weather-related disruption is included, there is a risk that Network Rail will have less financial incentive to keep services running or restore them, which could impact the Government’s ambitious target to grow rail freight by at least 75% by 2050.

I welcome the Government’s wider ambition to build a railway that people can rely on. The Railways Bill will create a strengthened passenger watchdog that will set minimum standards on many things, such as delay compensation and accessible travel. That is a welcome step towards ensuring that operators are held to account more when things go wrong and that passengers are at the heart of every journey. That is exactly what people on the Chase line are looking for. That line is an important connection for Cannock Chase and southern Staffordshire. It links people to jobs, education and services in Birmingham and beyond, so making it reliable is absolutely part of delivering the Government’s ambition.

I have a few practical suggestions. First, we need a review of the parts of the Chase line that are most vulnerable to hot weather—particularly between Hednesford and Rugeley, as hon. Members have heard me say many times—with a clear plan and a timetable for the work needed. Secondly, we need a proper hot weather plan for passengers, with good information, replacement transport to get people to their destinations and clear arrangements when services are cancelled or cut short.

Thirdly, we need to take a serious look at the frequency and capacity of services, especially at peak times. An hourly service is difficult enough when everything is running normally, let alone when services are disrupted. Fourthly, we need an update on step-fee access at Rugeley Trent Valley, including on the work that is needed and how it can be funded.

The people who responded to my survey are asking for very simple things: Rosie wants to get to college, Jack wants to get to work without being packed on to an overcrowded train, Angela wants to get to and from the hospital she works at and Susan wants to be able to complete her journey home. We can reasonably expect a bit of sunshine in the summer—we might even look forward to it—but the people using the Chase line should not have to spend the warmer months wondering whether the train will run, whether it will get them to their destination and how they will get home if it does not. I hope the Minister takes those experiences seriously and sets out what can be done to make lines such as the Chase line more resilient before next summer. I very much look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ contributions.

High Streets

Alex Easton Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

Yes, I do, and I am glad to hear that. I hope that the Minister can deal with that type of intervention.

I secured a similar debate in Westminster Hall just 18 months ago, but unfortunately things have not improved since then. I believe that what we require is a radical, fundamental overhaul of how we develop our town and city centres. I have listened to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who will presumably be our next Prime Minister, and he has talked about the promise of devolution and more devolution. I believe that that approach offers the opportunity, whether it is in northern England or southern England, for mayors and others involved with the devolution settlement that exists in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to come together in a format that accepts the need for a radical overhaul of our town centres right across the UK.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Given the current pressures on high streets across the UK, including in my constituency of North Down, does the hon. Member agree that everything should be on the table when it comes to supporting small, independent and hospitality businesses, including measures such as VAT and national insurance relief, and expanding the British Business Bank and the local growth fund to back high street start-ups and expansions? Does he also that part of the problem is the growing number of out-of-town supermarkets, which also affects our town centres?

[Mr Campbell]

The hon. Member is right. I agree that edge-of-town and out-of-town retailing are having an impact on city centres and town centres.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Easton Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to point out the abuses of fleecehold and how disturbing and worrying this can be for the people living on these estates. The Government launched two consultations in December precisely so that we can properly understand and take action to prevent the kind of abuses that she describes.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Have the Government made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing a mandatory standard service charge statement for leaseholders to ensure a clearer breakdown of costs and improve transparency in the administration of service charges?

[Steve Reed]

I recognise the situation that the hon. Member describes. We have launched the consultations to cover the circumstances he describes, precisely so that we can end that kind of practice.

Unadopted Estates and Roads

Alex Easton Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Strathern]

I know my hon. Friend is a tireless champion of his constituents who are impacted by this issue. He is spot on: this fleecehold stealth tax—because it is in essence a stealth tax our constituents are being asked to pay—is not just unfair to residents, but means they are all too often ultimately reliant on management companies to provide a service that they rarely receive. Not only are they having to pay more than those in adopted estates, but they often get a worse service, because there is no transparency or accountability around the management companies taking on those practices.

It is not just a cost issue for my constituents or many like them. There are other big non-financial costs associated with fleecehold. Far too many estates have had to band together and sink countless hours into holding management companies to account to get transparency over works, to ensure that very basic works and maintenance are carried out, and to make sure that things we all take for granted—such as safety inspections on play parks—actually take place. My constituents have had to sink days and days of their time into fighting for the bare minimum.

Alongside the very fragmented legal nature of those entities, they can also put my constituents at risk at crucial moments. I spoke to constituents whose house sales have nearly fallen through—one actually did—because the management company in question failed to provide the management pack in a timely fashion. That meant that during conveyancing they were unable to complete the sale and move to the dream property they had been looking forward to and needed to move to for their jobs.

I spoke to another constituent whose credit score was decimated when, after missing a payment by just a couple of weeks, their management company enacted some of its powers under the contract to go straight to the mortgage company, add the balance to the mortgage and extract the fee that way, with all the impact one would expect that to have on the homeowner’s credit score and sense of security.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. We have a situation in my constituency in Groomsport on a road called The Point. There is no management company for this road; it is actually owned by the local residents who live along it. However, it has been like a dirt track for decades. We are in a situation where we cannot get the Department for Infrastructure, which is the road service, to adopt this road, because the residents would have to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to get the DFI to adopt it. Does there not need to be some sort of special dispensation for people caught in this type of trap that will enable the Government to adopt roads when they have been in such a situation for decades?

[Alistair Strathern]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman gives an example of the kind that I think will be familiar to all too many of us. Essentially, an unadopted part of our constituency—be that a road, or common ground within an estate—falls into this limbo state, where no one step ups to be accountable for it. Without action or some kind of central movement to compel some change in the future, more and more of the public realm will fall into exactly the kind of disrepair that he has just described, with all the disillusionment among people that comes with it.

The case for change is clear. We currently have a system that is not doing right by our homeowners on new estates. Indeed, all too often it falls far short of the ideals of security and prosperity that home ownership and new house building are meant to deliver. However, in the absence of any action, this situation is increasingly becoming the norm.

As I have said, the CMA estimates that over 80% of the estates built in recent years are now subject to fleecehold; that figure certainly sounds accurate for my patch and I suspect that it does for other hon. Members’ patches, too. If we do not act and make some changes in the future, there is a very real risk that a lot of the 1.5 million homes that we are so committed to building over this Parliament will also end up falling into the fleecehold stealth tax trap.

What can we do? There are several actions that I urge the Minister to ensure that the Government continue to push forward. It is very clear to me that we need to stop the existence of fleecehold estates at source. The CMA has powerful recommendations about how to do that, such as bringing forward minimum adoptable standards and mandatory adoption timeframes, which should ensure that we do not create more of this problem on new developments as we tackle the housing crisis that so urgently needs action.

I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning is committed to launching a consultation on this issue, and I urge him to move at real pace. We owe it to our constituents to listen to them about the issues they face and to ensure that in the future fewer of them have to suffer these problems. Acting on the CMA’s recommendations and speedily introducing legislation to bring them into effect will be a powerful tool to do that.

However, we cannot act only on behalf of new estates. We will all have constituents in existing fleecehold estates who will be very concerned that, without action, they will not only continue to face the very challenges that we have been talking about today but will also become, in effect, second-class homeowners. As unadopted estates become a thing of the past, those on legacy unadopted estates risk being at a very real disadvantage as that problem becomes more isolated and more siloed.

In the short term, there are definitely things that the Government can do to hold management companies to greater account. There is the potential to bring forward secondary legislation that would ensure we are better able to regulate the services that such companies provide, putting our householders and our constituents back in the driving seat and making them much more able to hold management companies to account if they do not provide a robust, transparent and timely service, as well as helping to drive down some of the rip-off fees that have been imposed and ensuring that they can access information in a timely and transparent fashion.

However, we know that for lots of these estates, that will not be enough. In the ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced a couple of months ago, I advanced the idea of a resident’s right to manage. It would enable residents on existing fleecehold estates to take back control, to step into the driving seat, to push out the management companies that have been ripping them off for far too long, and to be in a position where they are the controller of their estate’s future, and can commission the services they would like. Although that is not quite the council adoption that I know many residents long for in the longer term, such a powerful move would put residents back where they should have been all along—in control of their estate and of all of the public realm that they rely on to go about their day-to-day lives.

I also urge the Minister to work with the Local Government Association and local authorities across the country to consider what further measures can be taken to ensure that, over time, we put an end to all the unadopted estates that we are all currently having to advocate for as a result of this deeply inequitable situation. Far too many households are stuck in the fleecehold limbo trap. Although better regulation and a right to manage would be powerful steps forward and welcomed by many people, ultimately local authorities’ adoption of these estates will be the only answer that completely resolves all the challenges that we have talked about today.

I urge Ministers to move at speed in bringing forward the legislation needed to cut off the creation of new unadopted estates. I would also welcome Government action to hold management companies to account, including through better regulation of service charges and tighter requirements on the transparency with which managing agents must operate. I also support action on the right to manage, so that our residents and constituents on existing unadopted estates are back in the driving seat, where they desperately deserve to be. However, I recognise that we will need to continue the conversation to work towards a longer-term vision. We will need to work with local authorities, Ministers and our constituents to make sure that we finally have a pathway to adoption for existing unadopted estates, which have been neglected for far too long, as many hon. Members have said.

This Government are absolutely right to focus on the housing crisis, which is one of the biggest challenges facing the country, and I am very excited that they have such a big, bold vision for taking it on. They are not just building 1.5 million homes, but ensuring record investment in social and affordable housing, as well as much tighter regulation of key issues from solar panels to building regulations.

However, if we do not tackle the challenge of fleecehold and end the growing scandal of unadopted estates, we will still be setting up far too many of our constituents for a life of misery, a life of battling to get the bare minimum and a life of paying hundreds of pounds or more every year—money that other residents simply do not have to pay—because they happen to live on an unadopted estate. That cannot be right, and it is not a situation that I will tolerate for my constituents. I know that many other hon. Members will not tolerate it, either. I look forward to working with the Minister and this Government to make sure that we tackle it with the seriousness it deserves.