Small Towns: Transport Links

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andy MacNae]

Thank you, Sir Roger. There will be an extensive section on buses—pages 75 to 300—so I am sure we will cover a lot of that sort of ground. Connectivity really matters for connecting communities. Ultimately, it is about how easily and affordably we can move through the place that we call home.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

The biggest single issue holding back economic growth in my constituency is the poor transport connections. In a non-mayoral area, we have found it difficult to access development funding to solve that problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to find a way of getting money into non-mayoral areas so that we can punch above our weight and be on a level playing field?

[Andy MacNae]

That is a real inequity within regions now, and I will cover that in my conclusion. It is a fundamental that we have to address.

We must begin with empowering people to actively travel by walking, wheeling or cycling to work or school or to see friends. True connectivity is not just about how we get from one place to another; it is about having real choice in how we do so. At present, too many people in our small towns feel that they have to rely on a car even for the shortest journeys. For many, it is not that they are unwilling to walk or ride; it is just that they do not feel they have the option. What they need is not persuasion but safe, accessible, well-designed environments to make active travel the obvious and practical choice. That means getting the basics right, from ensuring our pavements are usable for everyone—including those with disabilities or parents with prams—to safer crossings, better lighting and dedicated routes that give people the confidence to walk, wheel or cycle as part of their daily routine.

Within this context I would like to focus on travel to school. We can all recognise the benefits of more children walking or riding to school on health and on reducing congestion. It is generally a more relaxed start to the day. Parents know that, but far too many concerns over safety are a key barrier: speeding heavy goods vehicles, narrow and blocked pavements and a lack of safe crossings present challenges. It is no surprise that in small towns and villages, only 30% of children walk or ride to school. For cities the figures are much higher at around 60%, showing how much room there is for improvement, and that inequity can be addressed. Living Streets, working with forward-thinking councils like Blackburn with Darwen, has shown a way forward: local authorities working proactively with schools to deliver evidence-based travel initiatives and infrastructure.

But this sort of best practice is still far too patchy. Last year in Lancashire, my 11-year-old constituent William Cartwright collected 1,400 signatures for a petition asking the county council to simply install a safe crossing, to allow him and his fellow pupils to walk safely to school. Despite this clear public support, Lancashire county council said no, citing the tired old excuse that not enough people have been killed or injured—yet—on the road in question. The idea of working with the school proactively to enable safe travel seemed entirely alien to it. We need to do better. I call on the county council to think again and work with me on this, and I call on the Government to clearly lay down best practice in their road safety and active travel guidance.

More broadly, active travel must be seen as integral to the wider transport system, not separate from it. Walking and cycling are what connect people to buses, trains and trams. When these modes work together, we create a system that is not only more efficient but healthier, more affordable and more sustainable for the communities it serves.

I turn to buses, which are a crucial part of the transport mix that we have to get right. They are vital for the more vulnerable in our society—the elderly, the young and the disabled—yet 56% of county and unitary council areas still lack adequate provision. For small towns, a lack of buses limits access to essential services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The importance of connecting our small towns, villages and wider urban areas is evident from the number of Members who have taken part in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing it.

What unites the vast majority of travel needs across our small towns and villages is the importance of personal vehicles and—not instead of—affordable, reliable and useful public transport. Those two elements are critical to connecting small towns. The 2024 national travel survey showed the dominance of the car and other private vehicles, particularly in rural areas. That was alongside buses, which are paramount to supporting local travel. However, I am afraid that under the current Government, there is a mentality that, despite some worthy funding promises and powers to local authorities, risks damaging links to our small towns.

The 2024 travel survey showed that car trips made up 76% of distance travelled. The 2022 survey paints an even stronger picture for those in small towns. Those in rural towns and fringes used their car to travel twice the distance of those in urban conurbations. People in even more isolated areas used their car to travel nearly three times the distance of those in most urban areas. It is critical that the Government’s policies reflect this fact and support drivers in going about their everyday lives. Any other approach would impose self-inflicted damage on our small towns by disrupting the mode of transport most widely used, which in turn contributes to economic growth.

Although I recognise that the classifications are different, as it uses the more traditional rural urban classification system, some of the proposals in the Government’s integrated transport plan, published this April, highlight a complete misunderstanding of the public’s transport needs. The plan says:

“we will consider how we set clear expectations that local authorities and developers should maximise sustainable transport interventions before considering any increase in road capacity.”

That is accompanied by comments in the section on rural and suburban areas that give the impression that cars should only be used as a last resort—a statement devoid of real life. It is the state telling people what it thinks they should want, not listening to what they actually want. Talking about them being relied on in this way completely misses why many people choose to use vehicles—they are making a choice.

Supporting public transport and improving it to enhance links between our small towns is clearly also important—no argument there. In my constituency, I am a supporter of delivering the Haddenham to Thame greenway. However, we cannot do so by sacrificing or denigrating motor vehicle usage. That is indicative of why the Government struggle so much with economic growth. Rather than considering what they can do to improve one form of transport, their integrated transport strategy appears more comfortable trying to encumber drivers either by not increasing capacity or by putting in place policies such as bus priority routes, which in larger areas have done a great deal to restrict the ability to enter towns and some cities.

It is easy to talk about this issue broadly and for it to sound like hyperbole, but we can all reference local examples of our failure to take a balanced and practical approach to transport spending. In Buckinghamshire, the Aylesbury spur of the East West Rail project was originally viewed as an integral part of the scheme. It was removed from the plans during a major cost-cutting exercise about eight or nine years ago, yet the case for restoring it remains as strong as ever. It would vastly improve connectivity between Winslow and Aylesbury, both of which are expected to grow significantly in the coming years, while strengthening onward links to London and the north. Importantly, it would do so in a way that supports economic growth, which the Government repeatedly tell us is their overriding priority. Better connectivity means greater access to jobs and opportunity.

That example, along with the excellent examples from my right hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), demonstrates the wider point. The challenge facing small towns is not that people have too many transport options; it is that in too many places they do not have enough. The answer is not to make driving harder in the hope that people will choose another mode of transport; it is to improve all forms of connectivity, whether road, bus or rail.

[Andrew Cooper]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on the fact that what makes road transport more difficult is the massive pothole backlog that built up under his Government through the systematic underfunding of local government? Does he accept that this Government have put significant resources into fixing that?

[Greg Smith]

I agree with the fundamental point that the state of the roads in this country is getting worse and worse. The Government crow about the amount of money they have given to Buckinghamshire, my local authority, for pothole repairs, but it is absolutely and completely inadequate to fix the problems. Conservative-run Buckinghamshire council is spending £120 million—tenfold what the Government have given in a grant—to get the roads fixed. Anyway, let me get back to my point—it was a good try.

We need to allow people to make the choices that best suit their circumstances. Indeed, the condition of our roads is why the Conservatives have proposed targeted measures to repair potholes and limit damaging policies such as 20 mph by default, which have cropped up in authorities both in urban areas and where small towns are situated.

Furthermore, the bus fare increases that we have seen under this Government pose significant challenges to increasing demand. Although the Government have been reticent to admit it, the fare cap increased on their watch by 50%, and in many areas there have been further increases in the price of buses. That is simply factual. Those decisions impact bus users in our small towns, and it is this Labour Government who are putting the price of buses up. It is inevitable that increasing costs disincentivises travel between these areas. Some authorities are taking on the cost of bus services, and it remains to be seen whether a balance can be struck and services can be improved in a way that persuades people to use bus routes.

This is occurring at the same time that the Government are taking on their project of rail nationalisation, after a period of significant passenger growth over the past three decades. We can debate the challenges around rail and whether the solution could ever be nationalisation, but that increase in numbers is irrefutably beneficial when we consider connections between small towns. I therefore hope the Government consider the measures put forward by the shadow Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), which highlight the importance of passenger growth in the Government’s proposals.

Small towns do not need transport policies that pit one mode of travel against another. They need practical solutions that improve mobility across the board.

Cheadle Train Station

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this debate, and everyone else, including the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on their helpful interventions that stressed the fundamental importance of rail connectivity to communities in the north-west of England.

Before I turn to the substance of my speech, I want to say that I have noted the hon. Member for Cheadle’s point about the lack of response to his correspondence with the Rail Minister and the Department for Transport, and I will make sure that his correspondence receives a full response as quickly as possible.

I am grateful for the impassioned case the hon. Gentleman made for building the new station. He outlined how railways serve as a catalyst for economic growth, social connections and interconnectedness between different communities. A powerful case has been put forward on behalf of the people of Cheadle.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing the debate and pay tribute to him for the strong case he made on behalf of his residents in Cheadle. If I was in his position, I would make broadly the same arguments. However, I am the Member of Parliament for Mid Cheshire, and I have to speak for my constituents, and unfortunately there is no way to deliver a station at Cheadle that does not have a detrimental effect on the mid-Cheshire line and add to the journey time from Northwich, which is already an hour.

Transport for Greater Manchester’s modelling proposed dropping the services from Plumley, Ashley and Mobberley down to every two hours, rather than every hour, which would effectively kill rail travel to those communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the proposal is to go forward, we need to look seriously at either a half-hourly service from Northwich or wider infrastructure improvements, so that we can improve journey times for the whole line?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend pre-empts some of the matters that I will turn to shortly, including connectivity and capacity considerations for other parts of the north-west rail network. He is absolutely right that the Department for Transport has an obligation to ensure that these questions are considered in the round, and that communities are not disadvantaged. I will turn to that point in more detail in a moment.

The Government know and understand how vital good, reliable and frequent rail services are to local communities, particularly those in the north of England, which have seen years of chronic under-investment. The Government recognise the potential benefits of the proposed new station at Cheadle for the local community, including improved access to jobs, education, healthcare and economic growth, alongside the forecasted positive revenue that would help to support the railway’s financial sustainability.

In determining whether a new station is feasible, a number of considerations must be made, and relevant stakeholders must be included in the decision-making process. Network Rail, as the owner of the rail infrastructure, is responsible for assessing whether additional train stops could be accommodated, taking into account operational constraints on the network. The Department for Transport is responsible for understanding the cost to the taxpayer of additional stops and services.

Stockport council, which received funding for the planning and construction of a new station at Cheadle in 2022, is responsible for the project’s delivery, and Cheadle has been included in the Stockport local regeneration fund since September 2025. The funding landscape for local authorities has evolved, with the town deal, the levelling-up fund and the pathfinder pilots now combined into one streamlined, flexible funding stream called the local regeneration fund. This change aims to cut down on bureaucracy, and gives local authorities much more freedom to adapt schemes in response to local needs, so that they no longer require central Government approval for project adjustments. As a result, decision making is now much more devolved, empowering local authorities to act swiftly and responsibly on local priorities.

The delays to the project have unfortunately occurred due to several concerns around timetable feasibility and the potential effects on performance. The proposed location with planning permission is on a single-track section of the rail network, which leads on to the congested corridor between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly, limiting service options and presenting complex operational challenges. While services run along the mid-Cheshire line through Cheadle, the capacity of the line between Stockport and Altrincham is constrained by the single-track stretches. Parts of the mid-Cheshire line are also used by freight services, which will need to be considered when planning for any additional stops.

The interconnected nature of the rail network means that this proposal cannot be considered in isolation; it would affect the nationally significant Stockport-Piccadilly section of the west coast main line. An additional stop on the single-track section risks delays for all services at Edgeley junction No. 2, as trains approach central Manchester and interact with this critical section of the west coast main line. That could have serious knock-on impact on services across the network. The proposed timetable would also require the re-timing of long-distance passenger and freight services.

The Rail North partnership board is the decision-making board for service considerations for Northern Trains Ltd and TransPennine trains, and is one part of the process that needs to be take place to enable the service change. It is now evident that service change, including reducing the frequency of services that stop at Ashley and Plumley, is the only way that an hourly stop at a new station at Cheadle could be accommodated. Officials are developing a paper for consideration by the Rail North partnership board at its next meeting on 15 April. We need to ensure that those who are potentially impacted by such a change are given the opportunity to voice their concerns through meaningful consultation. We therefore encourage Stockport council and Transport for Greater Manchester to continue to engage with stakeholders and industry about the concerns raised and the areas potentially impacted by proposals.

This has been an opportunity to reflect on the case for a new station at Cheadle. Transport connections underpin the core missions of this Government: to kickstart economic growth, unlock housing delivery and break down barriers to opportunity to transform lives. After years of poor performance, it is more important than ever that passengers regain confidence in the rail services they rely on and that the risk to punctuality is fully understood and mitigated as far as possible. However, any timetable changes must be carefully considered to balance local benefits against wider network impacts.

I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle for securing this debate and other Members for their contributions. I commit to continuing the conversation with him on a key issue for him and his constituents, as he continues to fight for improved transport connections across his constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

Northern Powerhouse Rail

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of the Yarnfield compound; I am not sure that she and I have actually spoken about it directly before. If she could write to me with more detail, I would be happy to come back to her to let her and her constituents know what more we can do to provide certainty on the way forward.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Our region, from our big cities to our small towns, is ambitious for our future. We are hungry to play our part in our country’s economic recovery and have been impatient for the Government to see our potential after so many years of undelivered promises. Today’s announcement to invest in NPR shows that this Government will meet that ambition head-on.

The previous Government issued an instruction to the HS2 Phase 2b hybrid Bill Committee to remove the Mid Cheshire sections of the route from the Bill. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether this Government intend to retain or withdraw this instruction? If they intend to withdraw it, will she write to me with details of the status of any undertakings and assurances made by HS2 to my councils and constituents as part of the petitioning process, which would not be delivered for more than a quarter of a century and by an organisation that may, by then, no longer exist?

[Heidi Alexander]

I understand the importance of these issues to my hon. Friend and his constituents. I have instructed officials today to resume work on the adapted hybrid Bill. If I may, given the detailed nature of his question, I will respond to him in writing to ensure that I get the information correct.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I do agree. I am pleased to hear that progress has been made in one location, but our ambition to improve safety in and around the rail network does not stop there.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Sixty-six years ago this week, the last regular passenger train called at Middlewich railway station, drawing to a close 92 years of passenger rail travel from the town. A number of students from Middlewich high school have written to me to ask whether the Government would consider reopening the station, and Enterprise Cheshire and Warrington undertook considerable work under the Restoring Your Railway scheme. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the merits of bringing back railway services to the largest town in Cheshire without a station, and restore that vital connection to Manchester, Crewe and beyond?

[Heidi Alexander]

I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. How can I resist the invitation to do so when he has been contacted by the next generation about the importance of improving our rail network? I look forward to our discussion.

Northwich Railway Station: Accessibility

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gregor Poynton.)2.37 pm

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

From a debate about the personal property rights of crypto tokens, we move seamlessly into a debate I am proud to have secured on railway station accessibility, specifically at Northwich in my constituency. My thanks go to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for giving me the opportunity to talk about it. This is a long-standing issue that affects not just disabled people but the entire community of Northwich. For more than a decade, the station has lacked any step-free access to its second platform, leaving many passengers effectively cut off from half the station and unable to complete their journeys.

As we all know, rail travel is not just about getting from A to B; it is about connecting lives and communities. Our railways provide essential links for people who might otherwise face isolation and exclusion, offering vital access to employment, learning and healthcare and keeping us connected to the people and communities that matter most. They are the backbone of opportunity, helping people to participate fully in society. By doing this, rail services drive economic growth, strengthen social cohesion and improve health and wellbeing across the country. However, these benefits matter only if everyone can use the network with confidence, which means removing the obstacles that make rail travel challenging or impossible for some people.

Accessibility is not an optional extra—it is fundamental to ensuring that our railways serve every passenger, regardless of their needs. That is not the case at Northwich station today. Since 2013, when the old barrow crossing was removed, passengers have had no step-free way to access the Chester-bound platform, meaning that passengers who cannot use stairs cannot get to it.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about accessibility in train stations. We had a similar issue at Alfreton train station, where, after 20 years of campaigning by Labour councillors, I was fortunate enough to open the new lift, allowing accessibility from one platform to the other, only in July. However, we still have a similar issue at Langley Mill train station, so I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. Will he join me in urging the Government to make accessibility at our train stations an absolute priority?

[Andrew Cooper]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and her councillors on securing that improvement. I agree with her entirely, and I am sure the Minister has heard what she has said.

Passengers in Northwich who cannot use stairs cannot get to the Chester-bound platform. There is no lift and no ramp; there is just a steep footbridge with 41 steps. That means that wheelchair users, people with limited mobility, elderly passengers, parents with prams and anyone with heavy luggage are all put at a disadvantage or, worse, locked out completely. For some, that means missing trains; for others, it means giving up on rail travel altogether. When we talk about building stronger, fairer communities or encouraging greener travel, we have to ensure that our public transport is open to everyone. A railway station that only some of us can use is not truly public transport—it is exclusion by design.

I have spoken with residents who are unable to visit family, attend job interviews or enjoy a simple day out because they cannot use their local station. Local charity Disability Positive has highlighted how disabled passengers are being denied equal access, with one user telling them they had to be driven miles to another station simply to start their journey because Northwich was a no-go. Others are forced to rely on staff-organised taxis to get between stations, turning a simple journey into a logistical headache. While Northern Rail does its best to accommodate passengers, that is not a real solution; it is a workaround for an infrastructure failure. It does not offer dignity or spontaneity—it just underlines the problem.

Let us not forget: this is happening at a station that about 65,000 people live within 5 km of. Northwich is not a minor rural stop—it is a key part of the Mid-Cheshire line. Yet we have a station that in practice serves only part of the population.

What makes this worse is that we had the perfect opportunity to fix it. In 2021, the gable end of the station building collapsed on to the station’s Victorian canopy, causing major disruption and narrowly avoiding killing three people. Part of the station building had to be demolished and rebuilt, and has in fact yet to reopen four and half years later. That should have been the moment to deliver step-free access. The construction teams, plant and equipment were already going to be on site, line possessions were going to be in place and detailed plans had already been prepared as part of the station’s soon-to-be-submitted Access for All application. Cheshire West and Chester council, Northern Rail, Network Rail and local campaigners including the Mid Cheshire Rail Users Association were all united behind a proposal and were vocal in their support. The right thing to do—for the Exchequer in long-term saving and for what might be considered adequate compensation to the people of Northwich—was obvious.

Instead, the previous Conservative Government declined to act, simply authorising a like-for-like rebuild, and directed campaigners to Access for All.

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend points to a frustration shared by me and lots of campaigners in Weston-super-Mare, where we have seen missed opportunities over and over again to give people the basic dignity of access in travel. I am pleased that we in Weston join the people of Northwich and Alfreton in trying to get that accessible travel. Does my hon. Friend agree that accessibility must be included by design, right at the very start of any of these processes?

[Andrew Cooper]

I absolutely agree. If we are going to give people dignity, we have to make sure that we are catering for everybody’s needs.

When the previous Government declined to act in Northwich, a funding application was submitted to the Department for Transport under the Access for All programme. The previous Conservative Government dithered for three years before turning it down just before the general election. A once-in-a-generation chance to build access into the heart of the station was squandered: we put the walls back up and left the barriers in place.

This was not just a missed opportunity to install a lift. It was a chance to show that disabled people matter, that we are serious about inclusion and that public transport is for everyone, and a chance to spend public money more efficiently by combining projects and minimising disruption, and we let it slip through our fingers. The result is that Northwich station remains inaccessible for many people—a neglect made all the more galling by the £99 million underspend on Access for All in Network Rail’s control period 6. Northwich deserves to be part of that progress. It should not be left behind. Every year of delay means more people excluded from rail travel, more opportunities missed and more money wasted on temporary fixes. That is simply unacceptable.

I welcome the Government’s plan to establish Great British Railways and I recognise that structural reform takes time. I also welcome the very recent publication of the road map to an accessible railway, the commitment to end the short-term, stop-start approach to delivering step-free access and the £373 million committed over five years for Access for All projects, which I am sure the Minister will talk more about shortly. This is a significant step forward, and I commend the Government’s genuine commitment to inclusion, but I also say this: warm words are not enough. Funding must follow need, and few stations in the country demonstrate that more clearly than Northwich.

I have a few questions to ask the Minister directly. Will the Department publish the process for how stations will be submitted for consideration for delivering step-free access following the road map’s publication? Will the Minister set out a timescale for when that will occur and when communities can expect the next batch of stations for improvement to be announced? Will he consider Northwich station for inclusion in the next round of Access for All projects, ensuring that stations like ours—overlooked and underserved for too long—are given the priority they deserve? Will he commit to working with Network Rail and train operators to ensure that in future, when rebuilds or refurbishments take place, accessibility improvements are delivered at the same time?

We cannot afford to miss opportunities like that again. We cannot afford to leave communities behind. Accessibility is not just about ramps and lifts; it is about dignity, independence and fairness, and it is time that Northwich had a station that reflects those values. Let us make sure that no one in Northwich is left behind simply because the station was not built with them in mind. Let us put that right. Let us deliver a railway that works for everyone.

Regional Transport Inequality

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will do my best to indulge you on the fly.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this debate. Transport is not just about going from one place to another; it is about enabling progress. It opens doors to education, employment and enterprise, while also keeping us connected to the people and communities that matter most. But for many communities, particularly across the north, transport has not been a catalyst for opportunity, but a source of disadvantage.

Deep-rooted inequalities in regional infrastructure have left countless towns and cities disconnected, limiting access to jobs, education and essential services. The consequences of this divide are tangible, affecting lives, livelihoods and the ability of entire regions to thrive. That is because transport investment in the UK has been starkly unequal for decades. While London and the south-east have benefited from sustained strategic funding, many towns and cities across the north have been left behind, with ageing infrastructure, underfunded networks and, crucially, missed opportunities for growth. The numbers speak for themselves. Historically, per capita transport spending in London has dwarfed that of the north. Indeed, analysis shows that had the north received the same level of transport infrastructure investment per person as London between 2010 and 2020, it would have gained an additional £66 billion, funding it has ultimately missed out on due to regional disparities in infrastructure investment.

In my local area, inadequate transport infrastructure remains one of the most significant barriers to unlocking the full potential of Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich. It is a major obstacle to attracting new businesses, creating jobs and driving investment. But I hope that change is coming thanks to this Labour Government. The recent reforms to the Treasury’s Green Book represent a turning point. The updated Green Book places greater emphasis on regional equity, and on the long-term social and economic benefits of investment. It recognises that value is not just measured in pounds and pence, but measured in lives improved, communities connected and futures transformed. It is a chance to rebalance our economy, invest in the infrastructure that powers productivity, and ensure that no matter where someone lives—whether it be Middlewich or Manchester, Winsford or Warrington—they have access to the same opportunities as someone living in London or the south-east.

The Government have begun this policy with action: with real, visible investment in northern transport, from rail upgrades and new bus routes to road building schemes, such as the Middlewich eastern bypass in my constituency. I am proud to say it was this Labour Government who delivered the investment for this vital project—although I suspect the former Minister approved it just to stop me camping outside her office and badgering her in the Tea Room. I am grateful for her support, but her successor should know that this now means my lobbying powers are free to be directed to other noble causes, such as improvements to the Winnington bridge and step-free access at Northwich station

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I am glad to be speaking in this debate, because far too many of my constituents are being held back by our transport system. On rail, Rugeley Trent Valley, just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—he is no longer in his place—is a striking example of what we are here to discuss. Two of the station’s three platforms can be reached only by a steep footbridge, meaning that wheelchair users, parents with prams and people with limited mobility are effectively barred from getting to Birmingham and Stafford. One constituent told me that his friend, who has mobility issues, literally had to crawl up and down the stairs to reach their connecting train.

West Midlands Railway fully supports installing lifts, but such major upgrades fall under Network Rail’s Access for All programme, for which demand is huge and funding is heavily oversubscribed. With more than 2,500 stations competing, Network Rail prioritises based on passenger numbers and the proximity of the next available accessible station. That means Rugeley loses out to larger hubs nearby, such as Stafford. Although Rugeley has been shortlisted in the past, other stations have scored higher under the system. The reality is that the next allocation of Access for All funding is still a distant prospect. In the meantime, passengers are offered so-called mitigations, such as going forward to the next accessible station and being sent back again, or being provided with road transport at the operator’s discretion. For many, that is simply not a viable or dignified option.

[Andrew Cooper]

Will my hon. Friend give way for a very short intervention?

[Josh Newbury]

Given your warning, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not give way.

Accessibility upgrades such as lifts, ramps and reliable step-free routes must not be treated as optional extras in towns such as mine. They are essential to dignity, inclusion and fairness.

On buses, Cannock Chase shows why change is long overdue. We are one of the most car-dependent parts of the country, yet many still rely on buses. Over the years we have lost routes into Birmingham and the Black Country, and services after 7 pm and at weekends are rare. In my part of the world, we see stark evidence of a public service run for private profit and paid for in growing inequality. Elderly residents tell me that they cannot reach appointments, parents struggle to get children to school, and workers have to turn down shifts.

Nationally, bus services in the most deprived areas of England have been cut 10 times more than in the least deprived. Some communities have been cut off altogether, such as Slitting Mill, just outside Rugeley, which has no service at all, despite once having a direct bus all the way to Wolverhampton.

The Government’s Bus Services (No. 2) Bill—I was immensely proud to serve on the Bill Committee and to support it last night—will arrest and begin to reverse the long-term decline that we have seen for far too long. Whether it is the last bus that never comes or the platform that cannot be reached, my constituents know what regional transport inequality looks like. I welcome the Labour Government’s determination to put fairness and accessibility at the heart of transport policy. I will keep pressing to ensure that my constituents get the share of investment they deserve.

West Coast Main Line

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) for securing this timely debate. I do not intend to speak for very long—although, unlike the west coast main line, we have plenty of capacity in this debate—because he has set the scene in detail and there is no need to relitigate it too much.

I want to make just two points. The first is about HS2. When it is eventually completed, we will have spent tens of billions of pounds only to achieve the trick of reducing capacity on the west coast main line—and we know why that is. It is because HS2 trains are shorter, but the pinch points, the bottlenecks around Stafford and Crewe stations, will still exist. We will have to have fewer Pendolinos on the line. They will be replaced by shorter HS2 trains with less capacity. It is a ridiculous situation that the Government have inherited, but the fact that HS2 has been mismanaged over many years does not change the reality of the infrastructure. Those pinch points are still preventable, so I hope that Ministers will bring forward proposals—realistic, deliverable solutions—for the capacity problems.

My second point is about Northern Powerhouse Rail—also known as the Liverpool-Manchester railway or HS3, depending on people’s pedigree on the issue—which I understand we will hear more about from the Minister or her colleagues in coming weeks. It is an important project that will deal with the serious capacity issues on the Castlefield corridor in Manchester and at Piccadilly, but it is likely to force more rail traffic on to the west coast main line through Mid Cheshire, particularly the heavily congested section between Winsford and Weaver Junction where the number of tracks goes down from four to two.

Had HS2 phase 2b gone ahead, it would have dealt with that. Now, I have no love for that ridiculous route: in a three-mile stretch, it goes over the top of the Winsford salt mine, a set of subsidence flashes from the 19th century, the underground gas storage plant at Stublach and 60 infrastructure crossing points where pipelines take key chemicals to Runcorn to secure the UK water supply. It is not a route that should ever have gone through sifting; it should never have been in the hybrid Bill. It is symptomatic of the way the project has been mismanaged that we are where we are. Indisputably, however, had it been possible to build it—who knows?—it would have provided the extra capacity to restore two trains per hour from Winsford to Liverpool Lime Street.

Whatever the solution, if NPR is to be delivered, we need to address the capacity issues on the west coast main line between Crewe and Warrington. I frankly do not envy the Minister, or the Minister for Rail in the other place, because they have been left with a complete mess by the previous Administration. I hope that the Minister will address Members’ points about a capacity plan and provide some certainty about the HS2 phase 2b hybrid Bill and whether the Government plan to bring it forward.

I hope that Members will be able work with the Minister on a solution that delivers the capacity we need and creates frequent, reliable services. That will get cars and lorries off the road and support jobs and prosperity in Mid Cheshire and beyond.

Road and Rail Projects

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government have not given up on Wales—in fact, it is the precise opposite. It is why, during the spending review, the Chancellor stood at this Dispatch Box and announced £445 million of investment into rail projects—righting the wrongs of that historic under-investment.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

The fight for the Middlewich eastern bypass started more than 40 years ago, and after all these years of false starts, dashed hopes and frustrated residents, I could not be prouder that this Labour Government are finally delivering on that project. After 14 years of under-investment in areas such as mine, it is really encouraging to see the Government delivering the funding that is needed to make such a vital infrastructure project a reality. The recent reforms to the Treasury’s Green Book, championed by my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), have clearly played a crucial role in enabling projects such as this to move forward, better reflecting the needs and potential of towns like Middlewich. How does my hon. Friend see the Middlewich eastern bypass, along with the 50 other road schemes that she has greenlit, contributing to the long term economic growth and supporting more balanced and inclusive development across all parts of the country?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am really pleased to be able to announce today the green light for the Middlewich bypass. I know that that new 2.5 km of single carriageway bypass to the east of Middlewich will make a big difference to my hon. Friend’s constituency, unlocking swifter, easier journeys and more routes to employment and opportunities for his constituents for which he so powerfully advocates.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I will make three points.

Affordability can be a barrier to children taking up active travel to school. We have a great local charity in my constituency called Changing Lives Together, which runs a scheme called ReCycles. The scheme, which was launched last year, saves bikes from going to waste by refurbishing and reusing them, and taking old donated bikes to do so. It has have saved about 220 bikes to date. I hope that we can encourage that type of scheme nationally to allow people to overcome the affordability barrier.

On infrastructure, we need a cultural shift in how we plan and think about development. Section 106 agreements need to give greater consideration to active travel routes to ensure that new developments do not just provide homes, but create safe environments for children to travel to school.

Finally, we should take the opportunity afforded by the curriculum and assessment review to embed cycling and active travel in our education system. Just as swimming has been part of the curriculum since 1994, Bikeability level 2 at key stage 2 would equip children with the skills and confidence needed to cycle safely.

Transport Connectivity: North-west England

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing and so ably leading this debate. Mid Cheshire’s towns play an important role in our nation’s economy as one of only two sources of rock salt, as well as chemical, pharmaceutical and plastics manufacturing. Yet when I speak to businesses—or indeed anyone—they tell me that poor transport infrastructure is one of the biggest issues holding back businesses, jobs and investments in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich.

That is far from a new phenomenon; the Middlewich eastern bypass project has been the subject of local campaigns for more than 40 years, and was shamefully kicked into the long grass by the previous Government, despite earlier promises to fund it. Campaigns for better sustainable transport, such as more frequent rail services from Northwich and Winsford, a station for Middlewich— I sympathise with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton, as Middlewich is the largest town in Cheshire without a railway station—or a functioning bus service anywhere in the constituency, have hit barriers to progress. While I would love to use my time to ask the Minister to look kindly upon any or all of those projects, the issue is deeper than any one single project—although he is of course welcome to intervene.

We can and must fix the foundations of our economy, but we must also tackle the structures that systemically disadvantage our region—particularly areas outside the big cities—in the allocation of infrastructure investment. On that, I will limit myself to one point, which is fundamental to this debate. The Green Book, developed by the Treasury, is the Government’s primary guidance for evaluating and appraising public sector projects on value for money, but it utterly fails to adjust for regional disparities. The reality is that, as of right now, salaries are higher and high-value sectors are more likely to be located in London and the south-east than they are in the north-west.

On a like-for-like basis, it will always be easier to demonstrate a higher return on investment from a project here in London than it will be in my constituency. That is a problem. It is a problem because it undervalues the benefit of economic regeneration or better social cohesion, and it underprices the exacerbating effect that it has on London’s housing crisis, the pressure on its public services and the benefit that will be brought by distributing growth across the country. IPPR North estimated in 2020 that, on transport alone, if the north had seen the same per-person investment as London over the last decade, it would have received £66 billion more. The Chancellor has announced a review of the Green Book; I urge the Minister to exercise whatever influence he has to ensure that this moment is seized to finally fix this issue, which has been a barrier to growth for so long.

Our region, from our big cities to our small towns and from our industrial powerhouses to our rural hinterland, is ambitious for our future. We are hungry to play our part in our country’s economic recovery. We are impatient for the Government to see our potential after so many years of undelivered promises. This Government finally have us facing in the right direction on valuing and investing in our bus network, and on ensuring that railways deliver for passengers, not shareholders. They are progressing devolution in Cheshire and Lancashire that will finally give us the powers we need to set our own transport investment priorities. I hope that the comprehensive spending review and the Green Book review are opportunities to go further—not just to talk about handing power and money to the regions, but to set the rules to ensure that it happens.