Train Services: Extreme Weather

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of extreme weather on train services.

It is a pleasure to open the debate with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. As we all know, we love to talk about the Great British weather but that weather is not particularly predictable and it is becoming more extreme as a result of climate change. Although I was motivated to apply for the debate by the impact of this summer’s heatwave on train services in my constituency, I suspect that hon. Members have come to it with a huge range of weather in mind; I am sure we will hear about something akin to the 10 plagues of Egypt, reflecting the diversity of our great nation.

For many passengers on the Chase line, the turning of the seasons into the warmer months now brings a familiar question: will the train make it to Rugeley? That is not quite the seasonal tradition that people usually have in mind. We might have hoped for a little sunshine, a trip away or an afternoon in the garden but now we will probably have to check whether we can get a train home. Passengers along the Chase line know the problem well: as temperatures rise, delays and cancellations become more frequent. Services are cancelled at short notice and journeys are cut short. The trains that do run are often overcrowded and often halted at Hednesford, with the dreaded rail replacement bus completing the journey to Rugeley Town and Rugeley Trent Valley stations.

My constituent Alan, who heads the Chase Line Rail Promotion group, rightly asked me to tell the House that, for many months this year, trains did not reach Rugeley for much of the day. At best, services were cut from half-hourly to hourly and passengers often did not know even where to catch the bus. As hon. Members will have heard from their constituents, missing a train is not just—as the Tannoy often says—an inconvenience; it can mean missing an appointment, arriving late for work, or even having to lean on friends and family to get home after a long day.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for starting this debate so powerfully. During the July heatwave the East Midlands Railway service between Leicester and Nottingham ran directly and did not stop in between because, the Tannoy said, it was simply too hot. Does the hon. Member agree that students and businesses cannot revolve around a service that works in that way?

[Josh Newbury]

Having grown up in Leicestershire, I am familiar with the line that the hon. Gentleman talks about. There we have another example of how hot weather can affect train journeys. I will describe in detail how it affects my constituency, but he is right to raise how it affects his constituents. It massively impacts those who need to stop off on that line, at somewhere such as Loughborough, and can really affect their lives.

I wanted to make sure that my constituents’ experiences were heard directly in this debate, so my office ran a survey of people who use the Chase line regularly. The responses covered all sorts of journeys: people going to work, students getting to college, and families trying to get their children where they need to be. I want to share details of a few of those experiences.

Rosie told us about her regular 8 am journey from Hednesford to Walsall for college. She said that delays and cancellations have meant arriving late and missing lessons. Replacement buses make the journey much longer and on some occasions she has had to spend around £22 on an Uber just to arrive on time. She told us that she sometimes found out about cancellations only after buying her ticket and then struggled to get a refund.

Another respondent told us about their son’s travelling to college in Stafford. There is no direct bus from where they live, so the train is only practical way for him to get there. Both parents work so they cannot drop everything to drive their son when the train is cancelled. Emma also highlighted the importance of the Hednesford to Rugeley Trent Valley connection for children who travel on to Stafford. There is no direct bus alternative for that journey, either. Without the train, how are those students supposed to get to college? What do those aborted journeys mean for their futures?

The impact on people travelling to work is just as clear. Jack commutes from Cannock or Hednesford to Birmingham New Street. He described repeated delays and serious overcrowding, particularly at peak times. He told me that during hot weather two train-loads of passengers were often squeezed on to one service. He wants more frequent services during the morning and evening peaks—a fair request.

Angela told us about travelling from Rugeley to work at Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth hospital. She uses the train to avoid the difficulty of parking, but the lack of reliability has made train journeys increasingly difficult. On one occasion her outward journey was cancelled so she had to drive to another station. On her return she found that she could not get back to Rugeley, where her car was parked. Lewis, who also commutes from Rugeley to Birmingham, has recently secured a major career opportunity after years of study and hard work, but constant delays and cancellations make it difficult to know whether he will get to work—and, just as importantly, get home. His commute costs him around £100 a month. We know how difficult it is at the moment for young people to get a foothold in their chosen career. Lewis should be able to concentrate on making the most of his opportunities, rather than worrying about whether the train will get him there. His role is hybrid, which helps, but not everybody has that flexibility.

Kris told us that after repeatedly being stranded at work, they stopped going to the station altogether. On some occasions, they had to travel via Wolverhampton and arrange a lift or find another bus because no replacement transport was even provided. Susan described a similar problem on her journey from Rugeley towards Birmingham. Her return service terminated at Hednesford; with no replacement bus, she had to pay for a separate bus outside Tesco just to get her home. Lee described repeated summer cancellations and the explanations that he has been given about infrastructure and signalling. He said that the stretch between Hednesford and Rugeley must have a world-unique microclimate because it is so consistently affected. I am not sure we can scientifically back that one up, but as a Chase line passenger myself, I am very much with him in that frustration.

The survey that we ran also showed how much the uncertainty can affect people’s working lives. I have heard from constituents who have suffered migraines from the stress of their commute, and others who have had to take annual leave because of cancellations. I do not think anybody expects a railway to run completely without disruption. There will always be incidents and occasions when services have got to change—safety must come first, after all—but passengers are entitled to ask why hot weather keeps causing such serious problems and what is being done to address them.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for introducing this debate. Like him, I have surveyed my commuting constituents; as a result, I regularly complain about the unreliability of South Western Railway. It is particularly unreliable whenever there is hot or cold weather. Does he agree that the Government should deliver an investment plan to improve our railway network so that it can adapt to climate change, including by introducing air conditioning on all train services?

[Josh Newbury]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue. Extremes in temperature are increasingly affecting our railways. In many cases our lines were not designed to run at temperatures into the high 30s or even below minus 10°, although they are increasingly having to endure those conditions. Those conditions are not going to get any easier—milder winters are not suddenly going to come back—so we absolutely need to make sure that the services in and out of the train are resilient to that reality.

The hon. Gentleman leads me perfectly on to my next point. We know that high temperatures affect the railways. Rails expand in the heat, signalling equipment can overheat and overhead lines can also be affected. Network Rail already takes steps to manage those risks, including through track inspections, painting rails white to reduce heat absorption, and monitoring infrastructure during hot weather. I recognise the hard work that railway staff do to keep services safe in difficult conditions, and I sincerely thank them.

I want to know what more can be done to make the Chase line more resilient. We should not be having to have the same conversations every summer. We all know that hotter and hotter weather will be coming. Passengers need to know that lessons are being learned and that the work is happening before the next heatwave.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

In the south-west, we share a lot of those problems. The Salisbury-to-Exeter line runs a reduced service over the summer as a result of “soil moisture deficit”—a catchy term that means the ground is too dry and too hard, and the trains cannot run over it. That is not a new problem: we had a reduced service last year and the year before. Proper planning for what is now our everyday experience of climate change is vital. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the Railways Bill, currently in the other place, is an opportunity to ensure that our infrastructure is resilient for the future and is also taking account of our climate targets.

[Josh Newbury]

We are hearing about a different impact from a different part of the country; it is great to get that perspective from the west country. I completely agree that we need to look at how the changing climate will affect different parts of the country in different ways. The different realities, different weather patterns and different topographies all need to be factored in. I also agree that the Railways Bill, which I will come to a little later, provides us with an opportunity to think about resilience when it comes to the future of the railways for decades to come. That is absolutely where our thinking needs to be: in the long as well as the short term.

[Shockat Adam]

As the hon. Member mentioned, Network Rail has itself admitted that the summer was extremely challenging and that it has work to do. Does he agree that apology is not a strategy and that every route, including the midland mainline, needs a published heat resilience plan before next summer?

[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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury]

I thank all hon. Members who contributed to this afternoon’s debate, either through interventions or speeches. I have found it very enjoyable, not because of the litany of examples of disruption we have heard from across the country but because of the richness of experiences with which hon. Members have come here today to speak up for their constituents. We heard many interventions in which Members highlighted particular constituency concerns, including from the hon. Members for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Woking (Mr Forster), for West Dorset (Edward Morello), for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden).

I was interested to hear about the archaeological endeavours in Rugeley of the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane). We will have to find her site and have her back to repeat that. She is right to raise her constituent’s problems in travelling in and out of London as well as within Cambridgeshire, and I support her calls for investment in her line, even if it is just after for my line.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) rightly highlighted the human consequences of disruption, particularly in Cornwall, as well as the fact that big pots of money have gone to elsewhere in the country, but Cornwall, where there is just the one line, has missed out. She is right to raise that as well as the lack of alternatives such as flights, many of which are being cut too. She highlighted the issues at Dawlish, to which the Minister and the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) referred. He is right that the real enemy we are facing in this battle is climate change.

The hon. Gentleman was also right to speak about the risks further up the line at Powderham. He mentioned ageing rolling stock, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) who drew personal experience, having grown up in his constituency, and the fact that so much of the infrastructure in his part of the world is getting very old now. He rightly highlighted the disruption around major events, which I think underlined the fact that these disruptions can affect our sporting, hospitality and leisure industries as well as us individually as passengers.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), present and making an excellent contribution to the debate, as always, despite the lack of a train line in his constituency boundaries, was right to highlight the experiences of his constituents who use the Bangor line and the importance of resilient services going into Belfast, which the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) also mentioned. I thank him for highlighting the issues for our young people, whose opportunities are often limited by travel disruption. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) reminded us that transport worries are spreading right across Northern Ireland, and of the need for cross-border collaboration, which I think is true right across the British Isles.

The hon. Member for South Devon made a really important point around train wi-fi. She is absolutely right: we face a lot of productivity issues in this country, and if people were able to work while they were stuck on trains, that would go some way towards addressing that problem. I commend her for the campaigning she is doing, although it is a road issue rather than rail, around the A379 at Slapton Sands. Her constituency is one that my family and I visit every year to go on holiday, and when we were down there this year I was struck by the explanations on hoardings of businesses affected by the washing away of the road and the immense storm they had at Torcross. I was also struck by her explanation of the work that she is doing as an assiduous constituency MP to get those issues resolved. I really wish her all the best with that campaign.

I finish the debate by once again thanking hon. Members. I am sure we will all continue to talk about this disruption, which we hope will be resolved soon. I thank everybody for bringing their stories to the debate today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of extreme weather on train services.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

The fact is that there is not a community, high street or town centre in any part of the country that is not blighted by a building that stubbornly will not be brought back into use. It is right that if owners are not willing to take action, the Government will do.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

T8. This summer’s wildfires showed us how incredible but stretched our firefighters are. Their ability to prepare for and confront fires and floods will match the ferocity of what they face only if we in this House do our part. Following the Budget and ahead of the spending review, will the Department make strong representations to the Treasury so that wildfire risk can be taken into account when fire and rescue budgets are set?

[The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)]

I agree with my hon. Friend that our firefighters worked tirelessly to protect lives, homes and critical infrastructure during the wildfires this summer, and they should have the equipment to respond to that risk. That is why at the wildfire summit last month the Government announced £45 million of investment for wildfire-specific personal protective equipment for firefighters in England and UK-wide aerial capability. We will continue to engage with the Treasury post-Budget and ahead of the spending review to ensure that we are working towards meeting the needs of fire and rescue services.

Budget Resolutions

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

In this third day of the Budget debate, I worry about repeating what has already been said, so I will focus on two issues of particular importance to my communities in Cannock Chase. Before I do so, briefly, I welcome the cost of living support in this Budget—£100 back on council tax, VAT kept off electricity bills for longer, standing charges taken off gas and the continuation of the fuel duty freeze. Those measures will not solve every financial pressure, but they will provide welcome relief at a time when it is needed most.

Let me turn to my beautiful home county of Staffordshire, which, thanks to this Government, will soon be able to catch up with the likes of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire with the announcement of a mayoral strategic authority. That is a massive opportunity, particularly for our towns, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) always says, must be at the heart of the national growth and renewal that this Government stand for. Our big cities have done well, but it is the turn of the towns, and having those powers and the funding that comes with devolution gives us the tools we need to turn our potential into reality.

Perhaps surprisingly to many, our towns have, on average, more than twice the proportion of their workforce employed in manufacturing as our cities, at around 9% compared with 4%, yet employment growth over the past decade has been almost twice as high in cities, at 10.7%, compared with just 5.4% in our towns. We cannot seriously talk about rebalancing our economy while allowing that gap to persist, but that requires investment and, crucially, proper transport connections.

For too many people, particularly young people and those without access to a car, getting to work, college or an apprenticeship remains unnecessarily difficult. That is where devolution matters, because a mayoral authority with meaningful powers over transport, skills and economic development gives Staffordshire the opportunity to join those things up and be the masters of our own destiny. I hope that it will also bring some much-needed stability to our county’s leadership. Since last May, Staffordshire county council has had not one, not two, not three, but four leaders, courtesy of the chaos of Reform UK. Staffordshire needs a little less political musical chairs and a lot more long-term focus on the priorities of our communities.

Let me turn to the second issue: the mineworkers’ pension scheme. As the proud representative of nearly 1,000 MPS members, I will always raise my voice in support of those who risked their lives to power our nation. Alongside them and my fellow coalfield Labour MPs, we pressed the Government to release the £1.2 billion guarantor’s fund, end the standstill mechanism and ensure that all future surpluses go to those who earned that money in the first place.

The MPS investment reserve was returned to members by this Labour Government two years ago, and the Chancellor’s decision in this Budget to end surplus sharing and the standstill are major steps forward. However, we are deeply disappointed that the Budget did not include the transfer of the guarantor’s fund—a measure that would have put money back into the pockets of our retired miners. There was a clear expectation that this would be done, finally righting the wrongs of the past 32 years. I welcome the Chancellor saying from the Dispatch Box that it will be done, but we must never forget that this money came from the graft of our miners —it is their deferred wages, and it belongs in their bank accounts. With 100 MPS members passing away every week, we must move as quickly as possible, and we certainly cannot wait for next year’s Budget.

This Budget brought forward support with the cost of living, and it is allowing Staffordshire to take control of its own destiny. I wish it had sealed full justice for our MPS members, but we are now so close to ending their fight, and they can count me as an ally right until the very end.

Local Government Reorganisation

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Member makes the case as to why the district elections are important. We cannot have a situation in which there is a democratic deficit, where one part of the partnership in the reorganisation—the transfer of assets, workforce and liabilities, and the rest of it—does not have a say. As she says, the vesting day on this timetable will be April 2029. I am afraid that the idea that there should not be a democratic-mandate reset to negotiate that transfer just does not hold.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I will start by thanking the Minister for the part he played in getting the announcement of a strategic mayoral authority for Staffordshire over the line in time for yesterday’s Budget. However, despite the potential efficiency and simplicity gains of local government reorganisation, the shifting goalposts and the stop-start process have caused deep frustration in our county. Can the Minister confirm what the coming months will bring in terms of consultation with MPs, councillors and, most importantly, our constituents, so that they are clear on how they can again have their say over the future of our councils?

[Jim McMahon]

Now that the review has concluded, the individual meetings requested by a list of MPs will take place, and we will contact MPs in the usual way for those Monday sessions. Notwithstanding that, the “minded to” process will allow formal representations even beyond that.

Council Housing

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I will start by singing the praises of what we have done in my constituency, because Labour’s record at Cannock Chase district council shows what can be achieved when a council is ambitious about providing the homes its residents need.

After more than 30 years without building new council homes, the last Labour administration, which I was proud to be part of as deputy leader, got building again. It started with the most unglamorous of sites: old garage blocks that were becoming increasingly difficult to rent out, many of which had turned into magnets for antisocial behaviour and drug dealing. We turned them into new homes, filling some of the biggest gaps in our housing stock. We also partnered with Lovell Homes to redevelop the former Aelfgar school site in Rugeley, where 58 new homes have been delivered, including 29 council houses. The ribbon may have been cut under Reform, but the groundwork was done under Labour.

That brings me to the Government’s plans to help councils do more, because in Cannock Chase a lack of ambition was never the problem, finding affordable finance was. That is why I welcome the extension of preferential public works loan board rates, which will help make the numbers stack up for councils looking to invest in new homes.

I also welcome the council house building support fund because councils need the right people and expertise to develop schemes, build pipelines of projects and put together strong bids for funding. That is something that my council found that we often missed out on when councils of other similar sizes were getting funding awarded. I hope that my district council will make full use of that opportunity.

I will also touch on empty homes, something that two constituents raised with me just last week. One is concerned about the number of green belt sites having to be released. The other, who is trying to get on to the housing ladder, very much welcomed the upcoming Your First Home scheme announced by the Prime Minister but felt that bringing empty homes back into use should also be part of the answer.

I therefore welcome the Government’s boost to the powers that councils can use to tackle the issue of long-term empty properties. Again, I encourage Cannock Chase district council to make full use of them, including for two semi-detached houses on Poplar Street in Norton Canes that have stood empty for many years. I am also interested to hear from the Minister about whether there is scope to take the number of long-term empty homes into greater account when housing targets are calculated.

Finally, I welcome the Government’s plans to tighten right to buy because we need to ensure that the council houses that we build remain available to people who need them well into the future. As we make it easier for councils to build again, I hope that we can gradually work towards ending right to buy altogether and protect that housing stock for the long term. That is ultimately what the debate is all about: making sure that people have access to a decent, secure and genuinely affordable home, whether that means building on a neglected garage site, regenerating a former school or bringing empty property back into use. Cannock Chase Labour has shown that councils can deliver, and I hope the Government’s measures will give more councils the means and confidence to do so in future.

Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We are still working through the detail of the collection and reporting processes. Part of that consideration will be the presentation on bills, although let us not forget the 20% business rates support we are introducing for pubs and live music venues, which is the first step in supporting hospitality in the round.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Beaudesert outdoor activity centre in Cannock Wood, which welcomes 50,000 young people a year—including scouts, guides and school groups—and gives them memories to last a lifetime. It is a charity; it keeps charges low, and it worries about anything that could make its offer cost-prohibitive to cash-strapped groups. Given this Government’s commitment to expanding life chances and experiences for young people, will the Minister consider exempting groups of under-18s, to ensure that those valuable experiences do not become less affordable for them?

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend raises a fair point, and one that I will take away.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

1. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that the planning system provides green spaces for communities.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State and her team to their places. It is fantastic to see my right hon. Friend back at the heart of Government.

This summer’s relentless wildfires have brought home to us in Cannock Chase the vital importance of green spaces and woodlands. However, I have heard from residents of new estates such as Norton Hall Meadow in Norton Canes that their woodlands have been badly neglected by private management companies. Will the Secretary of State ensure that, as we build new homes across the country, the planning system ensures that green spaces are available to all and maintained properly for decades to come?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the subject of private management companies; I recognise the situation he is describing and how unacceptable it is. It is clear that the current system is not delivering for ordinary people, and the Government are committed to reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements and ending the injustice of fleecehold. We consulted on the proposals—I think that was in March—to increase the adoption of amenities and new estates, and we will respond in due course. It is the wild west at the moment, and the Minister for Housing and Planning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), is undertaking important work to tackle it.

Local Government Reorganisation

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

It is regrettable that the hon. Lady appears to be defending a system with so much duplication that money is being wasted on multiple tiers of senior officers when it could be saved and ploughed back into the frontline services that might address the very concern that she is talking about. Labour Members and I want to see public money spent on frontline services, not wasted on duplication. I urge her to consider that what she advocates would see more waste and less money available for her constituents.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Like many in Cannock Chase, I am glad that this reorganisation, which no one asked for and no one voted for, is finally nearing its conclusion. It is fair to say there was not a whole lot of consensus on council boundaries in Staffordshire, but there is consensus on wanting a combined authority, so that we can seize the opportunities open to other parts of England and turbocharge growth in our incredible county. Will the Secretary of State give me some reassurance that we can get on with this as quickly as possible, for the benefit of the people of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent?

[Steve Reed]

As always, my hon. Friend is powerfully advocating for his constituents. The option we selected is the one that is the best for growth. It will support opportunities in Stoke-on-Trent and Cannock Chase, bringing in investment and creating new job opportunities, so that people living in the area can access the same opportunities that people in other parts of the country take for granted but that people in his county have been denied for far too long. We are here, and he is here, to change that.

Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 General Committees

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I have previously been a local councillor, so I understand the importance of planning committees and of local democracy around planning decisions, but I find the idea that local councillors will have no ability to have any say or influence over officers’ delegated decisions a bit ludicrous. If a councillor is doing their job properly, they are constantly going to the planning department to speak to officers about various issues that are raised with them. It will be more than possible for councillors to speak to planning officers, knowing that they are to make a decision on something like this, to give them whatever local context they feel they would need to come to an informed decision. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with that?

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the importance of close working between councillors and officers, and I do not deny it, but the planning committees and the national scheme of delegation consultation outcome document is crystal clear, and I am grateful to him for allowing me the opportunity to quote it. It says in paragraph 17:

“Nominated officers and nominated members should make every effort to reach agreement on which cases should be referred to committee.”

Of course, that is only in schedule 2 applications; in schedule 1 applications, there is no opportunity for councillors to have a word with the officers and have the application referred to committee, but in schedule 2 applications there would be. The consultation outcome document goes on to state:

“However, where agreement is not possible, the case must be delegated to officers under regulation 5(3).”

The questions raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington, about whether officers will be required to prepare the same registers of interest and to be subject to the same degree of openness and accountability that councillors have to have are well put.

In our view, the draft regulations dangerously undermine democratic accountability—in fact, they remove it altogether—and leave the way open for those who will say, “It doesn’t matter how you vote or what you think—it has no effect.” The regulations will extend that principle to councillors and their powers: it does not matter what they think or what they say; they will not be allowed to affect decisions that are taken in their name and the name of their council. We will be pressing the regulations to a Division if the Opposition do not. Every councillor will regret these changes.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I simply say to my hon. Friend: as soon as possible. Through these new consumer protections, we are bringing into force a regulatory framework that takes some time to get right, but I want those protections in place as soon as possible, so that we can provide protection to his constituents and others across the country who are suffering from the set-up that he describes.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Yet again, we have the wonders of hindsight from the Conservative party. In the immortal words of Beverley Knight, “‘Shoulda woulda coulda’ means I’m out of time”, and the Tories certainly were. I thank my constituents, including Rob from Heath Hayes and Daniel and Rebecca from Brereton, who have written to me to stress the need for these reforms. Like them, I very much welcome the draft Bill. Given that these proposals will not only reform a feudal system but cap ground rents at £250, does the Minister agree that this is another way in which this Government are putting money back into the pockets of families struggling with the cost of living?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not want to be too critical of the Conservative Government, because they did bring forward the 2024 Act, and they did move the dial when it comes to the public conversation about things like ground rents. But ultimately, they did not finish the job, and it will fall to a Labour Government to do so.