Connor Naismith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Nov 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Business Impact · Hansard source

  More

  Opposition Members spend a lot of time complaining about the difficult decisions taken by this Labour Government, so I wonder whether the Chancellor can remind them what we have been able to do for public services and infrastructure as a result of this Government’s revenue-raising policies.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I start by acknowledging a point that many Members across the House have made. Many of us would not defend the principle of stamp duty; indeed, if it did not already exist, it is hard to believe that we would invent it. However, that is not the question before us today. If we are to decide to abolish stamp duty, we must say how we will pay for it, and we have to justify that decision as a priority above all the other decisions that we might make on what to do with that money.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is right to say that the Opposition have not been clear about how they would fund this tax cut, but there are some clues. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), told a fringe event at the Tory party conference that we should look at the Australian system of state pensions and “essentially” a means-tested state pension. Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns that under the Tories the state pension would be under threat?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Look, we will await the Budget to see the OBR’s forecasts, but I will take no lessons from the party opposite on economic credibility. They are the party of Liz Truss, which dragged this country into the economic abyss. We know that Tory austerity and a lack of investment in our country’s infrastructure are part of the story of why our economic growth and productivity have never recovered since the financial crash in 2008. It seems like the Conservatives want to take us right back to the beginning of that 14 years of chaos, failure and decline. I think my constituents would say no, frankly. What is worse, the Conservatives cannot even tell us with any credibility where the cuts would fall. We have seen this playbook before. They have no credible plan to pay for their promises, just vague talk of savings from the very services that our communities rely on—our schools, NHS and local infrastructure. The Tories have some cheek to come here and talk about home ownership when they manifestly failed to build the homes that our country needs because they presided over a broken planning system that they did nothing to reform. As I mentioned earlier, my constituents have not forgotten what Liz Truss’s mini-Budget did to their mortgage payments. During the election campaign, I spoke directly with families in Crewe and Nantwich who had seen their monthly costs soar overnight. I distinctly remember speaking to a man who told me that his mortgage payments had risen by £1,000 a month and that he had been forced to sell his home as a result. If we want to examine the reality beyond the rhetoric of the modern day Conservative party’s record on home ownership, it is that: failure to deliver, soaring prices and broken dreams.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman said that this tax cut would benefit everybody. Can he tell me how it would benefit people who do not currently pay it because their property is not worth enough?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right to point out that the Conservatives had 14 years in government. Now they are in opposition, they want to talk about all the magical savings that they could make. Why did they not do it when they were in government? It is too little, too late. As I was saying, if you decide that you want to do this, you have to tell us how you will pay for it, and justify that priority over all the other priorities.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. The most common reason I hear from my constituents for their inability to get on the housing ladder is that astronomical rise in house prices.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  It was those families in the middle who suffered most at the hands of Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, so I would expect Conservative Members to apologise to those families in my constituency for their record on the economy over the past 14 years. Compare all that with what Labour is delivering in government. We are getting Britain building, and not just the homes we need. In Crewe and Nantwich, we are getting a new hospital at Leighton, the new youth zone in Crewe town centre, a new history centre and many more things that our community will benefit from. The choice ahead at the Budget is clear: stick with Labour’s plan for national renewal or return to the chaos and cuts of the past, whatever shade of blue that comes in. Labour chooses a fairer economy, one that works for working people and rewards them. That is what we are building in Crewe and Nantwich and across Britain. The people of Crewe and Nantwich deserve better than unfunded tax cuts and economic instability. They deserve a Government that invest in the future, protect their services and build a Britain for all.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. The motion tells us everything we need to know about the priorities of the Conservative party today. In the context of the vast majority of options that we could choose to pursue, this is a regressive tax cut, funded once again by cuts—cuts that they will not be brave enough to specify with any credibility. Reckless with our public finances, reckless with our public services, and utterly out of touch with the realities facing working families in constituencies like mine in Crewe and Nantwich.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Trade Union Workplace Access · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that in sectors such as social care, which are facing recruitment and retention crises, better trade union access would improve working conditions and staff retention, which ultimately is only for the better for good employers?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Defibrillators · Hansard source

  More

  I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this important debate. I will focus on the maintenance of defibrillators, which is intrinsic to access to this lifesaving equipment. In my constituency of Crewe and Nantwich, it represents a very real challenge. I want to share a story about the gravity of the situation. In September last year, my constituent collapsed in Nantwich town centre, from a suspected cardiac arrest. CPR was administered by the public on site and a 999 call was made. The operator directed the member of the public to a defibrillator in the town centre, only for the member of the public to find, when they opened it, that it did not work. Another call was then made to 999 and they were directed to another defibrillator, which meant another 10-minute delay in finally administering treatment. We all know how vital it is that quick treatment be provided in cases of cardiac arrest. Sadly, the man who had the cardiac arrest did not survive; he passed away later. We do not know whether finding a working defibrillator first might have saved his life, but I am almost certain that it would have helped. I ask the Minister what plans the Government have to better regulate the maintenance of defibrillators. I have spoken at length about the situation with the British Heart Foundation, which operates the Circuit, and with the British Healthcare Trades Association, and it is clear that there are improvements that we could make. As of August 2024, in Crewe and Nantwich there were roughly seven defibrillators per 10,000 people. The national average is just 10. They recommend that there be between 50 and 100 defibrillators per 10,000 people. What is more, according to the British Heart Foundation, 46.4% of postcodes in Crewe and Nantwich are out of direct reach of a defibrillator. In a context in which we know that, with defib use, the chances of surviving a cardiac arrest increase from just 8% to above 70%, the existence of such defib deserts is clearly not acceptable.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Defibrillators · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has almost taken the words out of my mouth, because I was about to move on to some of the steps that we could take to address this issue. She is absolutely right. Clearly there is an issue with the VAT; as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, that is something that the Government should look at. It is also about ensuring that defibs are always accessible outside, about education on administering the equipment, about maintenance and about ensuring that defibs are on the Circuit wherever possible, because we know that in many cases they are not. One thing is certain: inaction is not an option. This equipment saves lives. If we fail to act, we will continue to have avoidable deaths, unfortunately, as in the case of my constituent. The opportunity is there to save lives. I urge the Government to grip it.

• 15 Jul 2025 · West Coast Main Line · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I do not often have to travel north to his constituency on the railway, but I have heard from several colleagues about the particular issues on that part of the line. He is absolutely right that although we should hold the operators to account, Network Rail needs to address key infrastructure issues.

• 15 Jul 2025 · West Coast Main Line · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s plan to bring our railway into public ownership, and hope to see the west coast main line brought into public ownership soon.

• 15 Jul 2025 · West Coast Main Line · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; it is an understated point, but connectivity is the lifeblood of our economy. If someone cannot get from A to B, they cannot access the opportunities on offer. As well as improving key arterial rail routes like the west coast main line, we need to see local services to smaller stations improve.

• 15 Jul 2025 · West Coast Main Line · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is correct. It is fair to say that “High Capacity 2” would not have had the same ring to it as High Speed 2, which is potentially why we have ended up with the situation we are in, but she is absolutely right that capacity was the main benefit. The cancellation of the project north of Birmingham exacerbates the sense that we can deliver major infrastructure projects in London and the south-east, but it is always the north that loses out when it comes to decisions about cost savings. Outside of London, the west coast main line is probably the most important rail line in the UK. Covid provided a brief respite for capacity challenges, but passenger numbers are already back at 98% of pre-covid levels and are growing at 13% annually.

• 15 Jul 2025 · West Coast Main Line · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members who spoke in the debate. There are too many to mention individually, so I am grateful that the Minister did it for me. It is fair to say that we represent a wide variety of areas, but most particularly those areas suffering most acutely from the capacity issues that have been well outlined in today’s debate. We heard about structural issues with stations and rail lines, such as those affecting Crewe station, and about the need to hold operators to account for delivering the better routes, fares and services that our constituents desperately want to see. I do not want to be over-prescriptive, but a number of hon. Members and I have suggested some solutions that I urge the Minister and the Rail Minister to factor into their thinking. I thank the Minister for engaging constructively with the substance of the debate, and I look forward to seeing more detail of the Government’s plans to address the challenges facing this key route, which have been outlined today. I am sure that she heard loud and clear the case that has been made by several hon. Members, and I will continue to press the importance of this issue. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the future of the West Coast Mainline.

• 15 Jul 2025 · West Coast Main Line · Hansard source

  More

  I am spoilt for choice, but I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman first.

• 15 Jul 2025 · West Coast Main Line · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of the West Coast Mainline. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate. As I look around the room, I see a large number of MPs from different parts of the country, reflecting the significance and length of this stretch of railway. However, it is clear that the line faces critical problems both now and in the future, as I hope to outline in the debate. For me and, I imagine, many of the other MPs here, “critical problems” on the west coast main line are experienced by each of us, and indeed many of our constituents, every day. As fate would have it, in the very week when I have secured this debate, the west coast main line was affected by a day of disruption yesterday that impacted my journey to Westminster from Crewe, with issues between Stoke-on-Trent and Rugby affecting the line all day. Indeed, a meeting I was due to have earlier this afternoon was disrupted because the person I was due to meet could not get here on time. In case Members were not already aware, the west coast main line is the beating heart of our national rail network. It runs 400 miles from Edinburgh and Glasgow, through Crewe and all the way to London Euston. It links the south-east to the north-west, Wales and Scotland. Not only does it serve more than 75 million passengers a year, but more than 40% of the UK’s rail freight moves along the route. That is nothing short of seismic—a point expanded on brilliantly in the Aslef trade union “Rail Freight Future” campaign, which I am proud to support. Outside of London, it is probably the UK’s most important rail line, and it is the busiest mixed-use railway in Europe, but unfortunately it has been left with no strategic vision or plan for future capacity shortages.

• 15 Jul 2025 · West Coast Main Line · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be in the business of improving services for our constituents, so we must, wherever possible, ensure that we protect direct services in whatever plans we bring forward in the future. The challenge is clear, because the west coast main line is statistically the least reliable railway in Britain, with fewer than 50% of the trains running on time—a situation that will only get worse.

• 15 Jul 2025 · West Coast Main Line · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear that we have cross-party support for the crucial improvements for the midlands rail hub that were announced at the spending review. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of the detail that the right hon. Member asked for.

• 15 Jul 2025 · West Coast Main Line · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make some progress. The recent report “Research on Long-Term Passenger Demand Growth”, commissioned by the Railway Industry Association, illustrates that rail passenger volumes could grow by between at least 37% and by up to 97% by 2050. Under any scenario, rail demand in the UK will grow beyond today’s network, but capacity is not merely a future issue; it sits in our in-tray as a problem that needs solving today. As recently as 3 July, the Office of Rail and Road rejected three open access applications for the west coast main line, citing concerns about capacity. I think the issues are generally well understood, but perhaps the elephant in the room in terms of the capacity challenges on the west coast main line—it has been touched on already—is the 2023 decision to cancel HS2 phase 2. As has been said, the primary benefit of HS2, despite its unfortunate name, was never speed; it was always about relieving capacity on the west coast main line. That single decision by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), then Prime Minister, in a hotel room in Manchester, blew a hole in the UK’s approach to addressing future passenger demand on this key UK rail network artery. I urge the Government to make addressing that problem a priority. The Government have been clear that they are reviewing options in this policy area. HS2 Ltd has a new chief executive, Mark Wild, who is charged with getting phase 1 of the project back on track. He is expected to report on those plans by the end of the year. If Mr Wild can demonstrate that he has addressed the company’s previous failings and that he has a credible plan to deliver phase 1 on time and on budget, the Government should reconsider extending the line north of Birmingham under that new leadership. Alternatively, I again press the Government to look carefully at the proposals developed by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham; the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker; and Arup and other stakeholders, namely the midlands-north west rail link. Their report estimates that the plan could deliver 85% of the benefits of HS2 phase 2 at approximately 60% to 75% of the cost, and that private finance could be leveraged to deliver the project. Crucially, the plan could save the taxpayer approximately £2 billion in costs from the HS2 phase 2 cancellation, through the reuse of much of the land, powers and design work that have already been secured through public investment. A further option would be to look at remodelling existing stations and investing in infrastructure to relieve capacity problems. Crewe station, for example, causes one of the biggest bottlenecks on the west coast main line. It is recognised that the existing station infrastructure will not keep up with the forecast growth in passenger demand. Among its challenges is the fact that Crewe has a series of unevenly allocated platforms, many undersized for modern, 400-metre-long trains, because the station—which I remind colleagues is a key strategic hub on our rail network—has seen little investment since the 1980s. Yet plans for a new station were shelved with the loss of HS2 and the investment that was to come alongside it. They could be picked back up if the Government wished to do so. Indeed, Cheshire East council still owns the land that it purchased around the station to facilitate that development. A new station could also support wider employment, regeneration and housing needs. Overhauling Crewe station would provide more reliable services between the north-west and the south-west, while also providing more options into Wales. It would be welcome if the Government committed to improving capacity on the west coast main line. The benefits of improving the route will be felt not only on our railways but on our motorways, in our carbon footprint and in our national growth. Something not always considered when talking about the need for better rail services is the knock-on for freight, car and air travel. Upgrading the main line would enable the Government to hit their target of 75% growth for rail freight. As a result of more freight on the main line, there will be less congestion on our motorways, making them greener and allowing for quicker journey times, while freeing up domestic air travel. Failure to do anything is simply not an option, so I politely ask the Minister, what will the Government do to flesh out the options that they are considering? When will they produce a plan to tackle this problem? Something has to be done urgently. There is wide-ranging consensus, at least from the conversations that I have had with industry figures, rail operators, trade unions and experts, that doing nothing cannot be an option on the table. I urge the Minister once again to give the west coast main line the attention that it so clearly needs. Let us improve the main line, let us rebuild Crewe station, and let us show people across the north-west that this Government care about their future.

• 15 Jul 2025 · West Coast Main Line · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the primary purpose of HS2, on which I will expand later, was to deliver much-needed capacity on the line. Unfortunately, the Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government a worst-of-all-worlds situation in which we are not delivering on the capacity benefits that HS2 was due to provide while also leaving residents on safeguarded land with a lack of certainty and, in many respects, failing services. That is simply intolerable, so my hon. Friend is right to highlight it.

• 14 Jul 2025 · UK-France Migration: Co-operation · Hansard source

  More

  In her earlier remarks, the Home Secretary referenced the memo that the shadow Justice Secretary wrote in March 2023, proposing exactly the kind of one in, one out deal that this Government have now secured. I was struck by the assertion in that memo that that kind of scheme would “quickly break the business model of the smugglers”. Does the Home Secretary agree that the Conservatives look utterly partisan, petty and two-faced as they now decide to oppose in public exactly the kind of deal that they were arguing for in private when in government?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Condition of Roads: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member—my constituency neighbour—talks about residents. Does she agree that it is often our residents who know their areas best, because they live and breathe them every day? They are residents such as those on East Avenue in Weston, who I consulted widely over road repairs and traffic-calming measures, or those from Stewart Street in Crewe, which is a key arterial road that has been neglected for some time. Does she agree that our residents should be listened to as part of any plans to repair our roads?