Rebecca Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Barker, and I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for presenting this petition on behalf of the petitioners. Hopefully, I will not take four minutes to speak, because I am no expert on this topic. I am here today because 389 of my constituents signed the petition, which means that South West Devon had the fifth-highest response rate in the country. As a Member of Parliament, I always feel that when we are sent that little table telling us how many of our constituents have signed a petition, it is great, where it is possible to do so, to come and represent their views. I have also heard from two or three parents directly about this topic. In addition, teachers have contacted me, including Cari Dyson. I have to say that if not for Cari, I probably would not be here this afternoon. She is a key stage 1 teacher who uses a play-based approach in her classroom. She told me that this petition “is not asking for KS1 to reduce essential academic content”. Instead, it aims to ensure that core knowledge can be taught using “purposeful learning through play; structured enabling environments; and skilled adult interaction.” Cari is one of the signatories to the petition who does not agree with the Government response to it, and perhaps she will not agree either with the official Opposition response, but I want to express her views this afternoon. I am certainly very grateful to her for sharing her expertise and experience. I draw attention to one school in my constituency, which I had the privilege of visiting towards the end of last year. Sparkwell All Saints primary is a very small rural school, and such schools can deliver this programme, which larger inner-city schools might struggle with. I put on record how impressed I was with what Sparkwell All Saints provided. The school starts with the Montessori-style nursery and continues that through into key stage 1. If I had children and I lived in the village, I would be queueing at the door to get my kids into the school, which is delightful to visit. Mr Cole, the headteacher, is inspirational, and the value of the play-based, hands-on teaching method that nurtures children from my constituency is clear to see. I understand the arguments for play, but we have to ensure that any increased emphasis on it does not hinder the teaching of a rigorous, knowledge-based curriculum, because, at the end of the day, we are preparing children to go through other key stages. However, as a non-expert in the room, I will say that I absolutely see both sides of the coin. One thing that will come up in the course of this debate—I think it was highlighted by the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)—is that often the schools that offer play are particularly beneficial for children with additional needs or special educational needs. One question I have for the Minister is: how do we ensure that, when this approach is used in local primary schools, we are creating a fair playing field? We do not want a situation where a few schools deliver an amazing, creative environment for children who might struggle in more academic mainstream schools, but on the other side, negatively impact SEND provision more broadly across the community. I absolutely recognise the value of play, but a school could potentially become known as being particularly good for SEND children and end up with a higher-than-average cohort of children who meet those criteria. Ultimately, I am completely compelled by what I have heard this afternoon. I hear all the arguments and I have seen the value of play for myself. I am slightly cautious and sceptical, given my past role as a governor in a primary school in a more urban setting that had a more traditional curriculum; none the less, it is important that we have been able to debate this topic this afternoon. Is it the Government’s view that a one-size-fits-all approach is right, or is it right to have differences in the school system? The new Labour Government want to halt the progress of free schools, which could provide this alternative form of education within the state system, and they are not keen on multi-academy trusts, which perhaps also offer a different way of teaching. I am interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on that one-size-fits-all approach, or whether there should be space in our state education system for different ways of teaching and learning.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  It strikes me as odd that rather than extolling the virtues of the Government’s flagship youth guarantee, we have had a number of Labour MPs asking about youth hubs. Is that because it is easier to defend the setting up of some youth hubs than feeding back on the roll-out of the youth guarantee? Since the Labour Government came into power, businesses have stopped hiring young people in roles where they could be paying someone more experienced the same amount of money. That has meant that youth employment has gone up since July 2024, with the most recent figures showing a 103,000 increase in unemployed young people. Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than Back Bench-pleasing schemes tinkering around the edges of the youth unemployment crisis, what we need is a strong economy with confident businesses actively seeking to employ the hundreds of thousands of talented yet unemployed young people across the country?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the clarity on the code of practice, which has also been echoed in some written answers I recently received from him. While we are talking about open access, what thoughts have the Minister and the Department given to working with independent retailers who have probably spent billions of pounds developing an app and a website that do a particularly good job? What work will they do collaboratively with those organisations, rather than viewing themselves as competition?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The point I want to come back to is about value for money for the taxpayer. I want some reassurance that GBR will not go right back to the beginning of the journey of creating a ticketing app and website, which would effectively cost the general public an inordinate amount of money, when we already have a lot of platforms that could be brought in-house rather than having to be separate businesses. On the value for money point, call me a cynic, but my understanding of computer programming is that it is not very cheap. I assume that that is something that GBR will have to factor in. Perhaps using some of the existing independent retailers might be a better value for money option.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to differ: they are all costed, because we are the official Opposition.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the heart behind the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, but can he explain a bit more about why we need a national railcard? There are already all sorts of other railcards, as he rightly points out. There is one for the south-east, and I know there is one in Devon and Cornwall, but they are for specific sets of people doing specific types of journey. If there was a national railcard, would it not incentivise everybody to possess one, so that nobody ever paid a full rail fare?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I completely appreciate what the Minister is saying. However, I suppose that the outstanding question is this: how will the general public come to understand what GBR is going to mean for them if it is not going to be established for 12 months and if there is not a fixed timetable for reporting back to MPs on how it is going? There has already been a fanfare about delivery; I am sure that there is going to be another fanfare from the Government once the Bill is passed. However, if we are going to take passengers on this journey, so to speak, we must ensure that there is an opportunity for us, as Members of Parliament, to be able to report back, even if it on an issue relating to our own constituency. I think the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham is actually quite sensible.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will briefly make a few comments about each of the new clauses, though obviously I have already intervened on my hon. Friend. I support wholeheartedly what we have proposed in new clause 1, which is no surprise given that I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. I want to pick up on what he said about the restoring your railway fund as an additional way of explaining why the lack of regional devolution, apart from mayors, is going to be so important for a lot of our constituents. I represent a constituency in the south-west that had some really great promises made under the restoring your railway fund, and was going to be able to make progress on a new station and railway line between Tavistock and Plymouth. That is really important if the Government want to see economic growth in the south-west, which they do, because they are investing enormous amounts of money in defence. But if we do not build in at this early stage the ability to see growth for regions that do not have a mayor, and are not likely to have a mayor for some considerable time, I remain unconvinced that the Bill is reassuring enough to say, “Don’t worry, these far-flung parts of the country will get a look-in.”

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that paragraph (e) and some of the other provisions will support what I am particularly keen to see: the growth of the entire railway, not just the areas that happen to have a mayor or are part of Scotland or Wales?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the further detail that he has provided. A lot of these regions feed into London and the big cities. If local councils are holding their local business units to account, how does that connect with services going from those regions to big cities such as London or Birmingham?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Knowing the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for all forms of transport as I do, I would like to build on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham made about amendment 214 in respect of district councils, and ask whether it would have been better to use the term “a transport authority”, which may well have linked it more clearly to the Bus Services Act 2025. That new bus legislation allows council-led transport authorities to control bus services. Perhaps that would have been good, safe ground to be on, which might well have enabled us to be more supportive.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister’s point speaks directly to something else I am concerned about: how the business units relate to local government areas. His explanation still uses language that makes it sound like the authorities will be much smaller, granulated local authorities rather than larger strategic ones. Can the Minister help me to understand how the business unit will work in an area that does not have a mayoralty—that top level of devolution—in place? I do not want to be parochial, but two railway companies currently provide services in the south-west, and there are three in the far south-west, if we look at some of the other routes down from London to there. If there is a business unit, what is it controlling? Is it controlling the entire south-west? Is it controlling the railway company providing that service? Does it have to be linked to a level of devolution, or will it exist anyway, meaning that local councils, such as the one in my area, would still refer to them?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will touch briefly on two points that are not necessarily related, but overlap. First, let me build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said about the word “may” in clause 5(1). Anyone who was at the oral evidence session earlier this week would have heard the Manchester and west midlands mayors talking about wanting a meaningful relationship. They could not pinpoint exactly what meaningful would look like, but the gist was a desire to make sure that the relationship has some “oomph” or a decent foundation to it. I am therefore concerned about the use of the word “may”. Will the Minister define what “may” means and when “may” might happen? Ultimately, that is potentially the biggest get-out clause for not having to act. I know that that is not the intention, but I do not think that the Bill as drafted clearly describes that. I referred earlier to the general premise of devolution and the Minister tried to reassure me about devolution outside strategic mayoral authorities, but I still do not think that the Bill is clear enough about what is going to happen. Given that the Bill sets up a railway system that the Government hope will last forever, it is not clear how other parts of the country will come into play. The Transport Committee has debated that and heard lots of evidence as well. The question remains. While I appreciate the Minister’s reassurances, they do not go far enough to help me and many others across the country to understand what is in the Bill for them regarding local control and power. We have debated changing language today and I have already talked about the potential for referring to “local transport authorities”. I am intrigued about why subsection (5)(c) is the end of the line. It refers to a “Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area.” Why does this not go further? We know that the Government have huge intentions for devolution and local government re-organisation but, despite their best intentions, that might not come to pass in the way they think. How can the Bill be changed to reflect areas of the country that do not have a mayor or any of the bodies included in subsection (5)? How will the Government ensure that the whole country benefits from GBR, not just those areas that have great, charismatic mayors—of all colours? They keep being brought in front of the Select Committee as the solution to all of our transport problems, but unless other areas in the country get a mayor, they will not see the benefits of any of it. I know that that is the Government’s intention, but I genuinely do not think that it will be the reality for a number of years.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech for an area of the country that is still two tier. However, having been a representative in a unitary council and lived in one for a number of years, it is worth putting on the record that being part of a unitary authority does not mean that potholes or SEND provision are perfect. I appreciate that that is probably not what he is implying, but someone listening to this debate might be led to believe, mistakenly, that unitarisation is a silver bullet. Does he agree that we need to be realistic about that?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this debate. I have made no secret of my views, unlike some Members who have kept their views to themselves on the outcome they would like. That is because I have a deep conviction, as someone who grew up in the area, of what feels right and what my constituents wish to see. I am in an interesting position because I am Plymouth born and bred, have served as a unitary city councillor, and now represent 40,000 residents in the city as their MP, but I do not believe the city needs to expand to deliver what it wants to. The plan is for an arbitrary number, which I genuinely believe is for land for homes and increased council tax receipts that villages such as Wembury, Yealmpton, Bickleigh, Woolwell, Newton Ferrers and Noss Mayo would provide. Devon is an interesting county, and a big one. It is the fourth largest county in the country, which I think people often forget, and is therefore very varied. We have national landscapes, Dartmoor national park, the largest naval base in western Europe, the Roman city of Exeter, a huge amount of manufacturing, and cultural gems, such as Saltram House in my constituency. Therefore, a plan that is entirely bottom-heavy—two cities and a large town coming together to say, “We’ll look after ourselves, guv,” and the rest of the county being left on its own—has understandably not landed that well with what is considered “the rest of Devon” but is, I gently point out, more than 50% of the population. What we know about the county of Devon is that local identity matters hugely. That means that the whole county needs to thrive as a result of local government reorganisation, rather than there just being pockets of investment and development and then everybody else. Along the lines of what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said about the age profile, in a lot of rural Devon there are lots of older people, and the young and working population is in the big cities. That is why it is not surprising that 90% of those who completed surveys that I have conducted on the local government reorganisation plans are against the plans to subsume 13 parishes in my constituency into Plymouth city council, and why approximately 1,900 people signed a petition to say the same. I have to say that, although Plymouth city council has done the consultation it is supposed to, the figure it shared with me for the number of residents it heard from was about half the number who have been in communication with me as the MP. Those statistics come directly from constituents who currently have no formal voice in the LGR process. When the two cities in Devon seem determined to secure their own future rather than be realistic about the economic viability of the rest of Devon, it is not hard to see why my constituents are unhappy. As it stands, the LGR process has resulted in a bidding war and caused local councils, such as some in Devon, to pick the best bits at the expense of the rest. Obviously, that is my opinion, but that is what I am watching happen across the county. That is why I am against Plymouth and Exeter’s proposal to carve off the parishes that they think will get them to the magic number of about 300,000 that they have in their head, never mind what else happens. They literally call it, “the rest of Devon.” The Government claim that consultation is taking place—I know that it is, because I have been invited to take part in it—but it is not the mass inquiry that I think we are talking about today. I do not necessarily think that it has to be a referendum, but something more formal would have been better. Options for Members of Parliament have been limited. I, for one, have been quite proactive. I have gone out to find out what my constituents think, and will be writing to the Minister to share their views. Other local MPs have written to the Minister simply based on their own political views without surveying their residents. Local councils are being taken at their word. They may have carried out consultations, but they have been written up by the very people who want the change where there is a huge vested interest in seeing it delivered. They are quite literally marking their own homework. I know they have tried to be fair and spoken to as many people as they possibly can, but I am still not happy that that should be given greater weight than any of the information that Members of Parliament are sharing. One of the consultations the Minister will have received from the council implies that it has consulted with local MPs. Well, the only consultation was when I rang them to say, “Why have you said you have consulted with me when I have not actually heard from you?” They have had an opportunity and it has not been taken properly, which has left quite a bad taste in the mouth of Members of Parliament like me. What we really need is a formal consultation of the communities affected. In this case, that should be county-wide, rather than just in the pockets that want to see delivery for themselves. Devon is a huge county, and a coherent consultation has been very difficult because so many options have been on the table. There has been a consultation for each individual plan, and none of them look at the big picture; they all look at the view that the particular council or group has been proposing. In a county like Devon, where the two key cities have Labour councils and majority Labour MPs, and with a Labour Government calling for this change, it is unsurprising that local people are doubtful of the proposals. I appreciate that it is all being done in good faith, but that is how it comes across at the moment. Local identity really matters where there is a connection between urban and rural. That is what I am trying to present this afternoon. I am stuck in the middle, so to speak, between an urban city that ultimately needs money in its most deprived parts, and the country parishes, which are deemed richer. However, the whole south-west is poorer than large parts of the rest of the country, so we are comparing apples and pears, rather than like for like. Some 67% of those surveyed identified as being from Devon. I appreciate this was not a qualitative exercise, but 10% identified as being from Plymouth; and 18% typically named their small town or village as where they are from. That might not change, but to start having rubbish collected and services provided by the big city down the road is deeply concerning for a lot of rural villages, so imposing a top-down decision on communities like mine has, as I have mentioned, gone down very badly. In the absence of a referendum, I call on the Minister to weigh heavily the evidence from MPs like myself where we can show community engagement among our own constituencies. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Perhaps the Department could have encouraged independent consultation rather than each of the groups’ creating their own plan and doing their own consultation, because I genuinely think they have gone and written up the answers that they want to portray. What I have heard is certainly not what I have had presented back to me by the councils. I urge the Minister to look at Devon as a whole, as a county that has so much to offer. If it is left to cities and the rest of Devon, it will not necessarily be in the greatest interests of the county. I urge her to listen to the views of everybody, not just those from large cities, which, as I have said, make up less than half the county’s population. I have one further question for the Minister. We have heard plenty this afternoon about the different services that can be provided by different councils. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) mentioned precepts. A confusing thing that has not been talked about is that as the change happens, we are not looking at a level playing field on council tax. In Plymouth at the moment we pay council tax to the unitary authority, but the district council, the parish council and county council get money. It is my understanding that precepts will remain for the parts of the unitary that are not in the city, and that we will end up with parts of my constituency paying more council tax than others. Interestingly, there is an offer of creating town councils in new bits. Some of the independent councillors in one community in my constituency are pushing to create a town council in Plympton. I do not think the constituency is clear whether that means that the council tax will go up to pay for that new town council or the parish council. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that, just to make it ultra-clear what we are talking about on the ground.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is more the fact that there are not going to be any more in certain parts of the country for this Parliament. Andy Burnham: For us, though, we are moving to a situation where Cheshire and Warrington are going to have a mayor soon, and I believe Lancashire will too—hopefully, Sarah. That would mean an all-devolved north-west. I think we would start to collaborate very differently with each other in that world, and it would work. I do not see why it cannot go everywhere; I suggest that it should. On “meaningful”, the answer is that it is joint decision making. Let us get away from the idea that we just mandate the railways. That would not be realistic, because running a railway is complicated. It is about joint decisions. We are already doing it, to be honest with you. We are working like that. We have a Greater Manchester rail board and all the partners come to it. It has moved on a lot in the last 12 months. Going back a year or so, it was a little fractious, but it is not so much any more. People are clicking into a new way of thinking and working. Culture change takes time, but it is happening. It is about jointly agreeing ways forward. I will give you an example. We had four different rail fares from Manchester airport to Piccadilly in the city centre. We said, “That’s just ridiculous; it’s confusing for visitors.” Picking up on what Jayne was saying, we have now agreed a fare simplification, which came in in December, as a sort of precursor to the cap system. That has just been jointly agreed. We have also agreed with TransPennine that there will be services through the night from Manchester airport. This joint decision making is beginning to happen in a meaningful way, and that is the meaningful bit.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I was going to ask more about devolution. I will just make the point that I was going to make, and then I will ask you a very quick question. The application of the term “devolution and local leadership” to this Bill is quite distracting, because ultimately, unless you are a mayoral combined authority, you do not get any of these powers. I think that was what Jayne was alluding to. To my mind, GBR is an increasingly two-tier system: you have the devolved local authorities and everywhere else. I am concerned about what that is going to mean for accountability to local areas. That was more of a statement than a question—apologies. You keep saying that you want a meaningful relationship with GBR. The question that has kept coming to my mind is: what does “meaningful” actually look like? Can you unpack what you mean by “meaningful”? Andy Burnham: On your statement, I think we have to get our heads in the space of an all-devolved England. I know it can be difficult, but sometimes people have to see the bigger picture of the area where people live and travel. People go across those borders every day; they do not think about borders as much as politicians.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Will you get that with GBR, though? It is great that those relationships exist across the network and the region, but the point in the Bill is specifically that you will be consulted by GBR, but you will not necessarily get to make the decision. You are saying you would like to make the decisions, or at least— Andy Burnham: Jointly.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Or at least make them jointly. Is that what you are after—that joint decision making? Andy Burnham: Yes, I think that would be what we would want. The risk would be that GBR is too remote and not responsive—everything that Lloyd was saying about slow decision making. That is not what we would want. From our point of view, we would want a Bee Network business unit within GBR, with joint decision making and a very place-based focus. That would be meaningful.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q As I understand it, one of the ways that a lot of it will be delivered—the detail of what GBR has to provide—is through the licence. Do you think it is a problem that the Committee has not had sight of the draft GBR licence yet, setting out what we expect accessibility to look like in the Bill versus the reality of what it will look like? Ben Plowden: I would make a slightly broader point, which is the number of other documents and processes that will need to be in place either in parallel with the Bill or subsequent to it being passed—I stopped counting at 19. There is a long-term rail strategy, the GBR business plan, the licence that you have just mentioned, the statement of funds available, and the list goes on. One of the questions for the Committee is whether it sees some of those documents as part of its scrutiny, and understanding how all the different components of the system that GBR will operate within are going to work, when they are going to materialise and how they will interact with each other. Even though the Government’s intention is to simplify the system, it will still be quite a complex system of delivery, regulation, oversight, investment and so on. A broader understanding of the entire system that the GBR Bill will create is important. Not having had sight of some of those critical documents is part of that uncertainty.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Can I just come back to you on that? One of the other things that came out when we had the Rail Minister in front of us was the devolution aspect, and my understanding is that each of these individual railway lines will still be run as an individual line. It will be like we have it now; they are just going to be publicly owned, rather than privately owned. The implication was that the chief executive of those lines is ultimately accountable, so it is up to them to deliver the service for passengers. Obviously, what you are saying about the business plan is very high level, but we are also talking about what happens on the ground with passenger services. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I am not sure I would want to be the chief executive of one of those railway lines—you are basically expected to be the fall guy or girl, if it does not go right. How do those individual chief executives play into this triangle of accountability that you have? Why should they be holding that level of responsibility? Should that not be with the Secretary of State or somebody more senior? Jeremy Westlake: Can I come in on that one? First, the intent of how we are constructing GBR is to introduce much more local empowerment to create an integrated railway that actually consults with the communities that it serves. Whether that is the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or mayoral combined authorities, we want those strategies to be built up from that level, so that you actually have a railway that serves the communities that it is there for. I actually think that the jobs of running these integrated business units are some of the best that you could have in the railway, because the intent is to have the rest of the organisation supporting them to deliver for passengers and the communities they serve. Actually, if you look at the statutory roles for consultation, and the intent in drawing those input and output requirements to those integrated business unit leaders, I think we will end up with a much better strategy for the railway as a whole.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q One of the things that has been touched on in that conversation, particularly around universal design and the Bill’s aims to improve accessibility, is that we already have huge discrepancies around the country on each individual line. It is worth asking, for the record, whether you agree that there will be a significant time lag in when this accessibility aim will actually be delivered to the general public. The Minister eventually suggested that it may take 30 years for some of these things to come into place, so do you think it is important for us to be realistic with the public about what the accessibility provision in the Bill will actually mean on the ground? Emma Vogelmann: Overall transparency and really clear expectations and timelines are absolutely what disabled passengers need. However, there are still grounds for that rate of change to be challenged. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee said that at the current rate of change, it will take another 100 years before all train stations are made step free in the UK. We need to be transparent about that rate of change, but also be prepared to challenge it. Alex Robertson: We need to be serious about the change: it is a huge change that we need and some of those things will take a long time. The infrastructure cannot be changed overnight. You had a conversation earlier about the need for long-term planning that puts you in a position to do that. You have to be realistic and up front about that and recognise that it draws on public money to do that. There are other changes, however, that could happen much more quickly. You could get a much clearer signal about the priority given to accessibility, and you could get a change in how effective passenger assistance is delivered. I do not want to suggest that that can change overnight, because it is not straightforward; it is dependent on how you operate the railway and different expectations—for example, of staff members, their systems and so on—but you can make a more rapid change in relation to that. I mentioned earlier the redress that people receive when passenger assistance fails—and when turn up and go fails. Turn up and go is completely unreliable, which is why people often have to rely on booking passenger assistance, but even that fails about one in five times so those people do not get the full service. You would want to see some pretty rapid progress on those things, and recognise that some of the longer-term changes to infrastructure are not straightforward. However, you would also want to have confidence that there is a sufficiently ambitious plan in place, and that people are going to hold the feet of those who are delivering it to the fire.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q But the responsibility for the delivery of services will be theirs. Going back to my original question about how we hold it to account, are you effectively saying that when it comes down to the individual railway lines and the services, we as MPs will be going to that chief exec and then having to figure out how we escalate it if that does not work? Alex Hynes: Under the current system, if you want to talk about the delivery of rail services in your area, you have to talk to the relevant train operating company’s managing director and the relevant route director in Network Rail, because there is no one in charge. These integrated business units are going to be the powerhouse of Great British Railways. We have created three of them already, albeit using a workaround within railway legislation. In Kent, on South Western and Greater Anglia, we have now appointed one person to run track and train to ensure that that person is making joined-up decisions in an integrated way, and in the best interests of passengers and taxpayers. Also, as an accountability mechanism, it works incredibly well because there is nowhere else to go—that person is the directing mind for their chunk of the railway. Having done one of those jobs myself for seven years in Scotland, it is very effective as an accountability mechanism, and it enables much better decision making, as well as decision making that can be undertaken faster than in the current system, where we have many organisations involved in the running of the railway.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to go back to the accountability piece. You said to the Minister that there are adequate checks and balances in the system. I have spent quite a lot of time looking at this on the Transport Committee, and the closest thing I can relate GBR to is the NHS. It is not necessarily run by the Department of Health and Social Care; it is a separate organisation, and then it is devolved into local regions through integrated care boards and things. My experience is that it is incredibly difficult to hold it to account because you do not have direct access to the Secretary of State. I am interested in your views on how we, as parliamentarians, will hold Great British Railways to account, not only as constituency MPs when the services do not necessarily deliver your aims, but in our scrutiny function as Select Committees. What should we focus on with GBR? How you have described it sounds as complicated as the NHS, and for 20 years I have struggled to figure out how we actually hold that to account. Ultimately, if we are creating a new organisation that has a public benefit, how will politicians hold it to account if the public cannot trust us to be able do that? In the Transport Committee evidence, the implication was that it will be done through the Secretary of State, but if I were the Secretary of State, I would not necessarily want to take responsibility for anything that is not going right with GBR. I am interested in your comments on how we as MPs can hold GBR to account once it has been established. John Larkinson: I could say something about the role of the ORR in holding it to account. There is a distinction between the role of the Secretary of State and our role. Ultimate accountability is with the Secretary of State. For example, it is the Secretary of State who signs off the GBR business plan, which is a fundamental component of the new system, in my mind. If there were a very strategic problem at Great British Railways—if it were not following its duties or if it were breaking the law—ultimate accountability would be with the Secretary of State. Within that, some of the accountability comes through us. We have the role of enforcing the GBR licence. In terms of the provision of information coming out of the system, one of our big roles is monitoring everything that GBR does and all its functions. That will be done largely through the monitoring of the business plan. From my perspective, it is crucial that we have the ability to do that as we see fit and to publish information. A crucial role for the regulator is providing that information base and analysis to allow Parliament to scrutinise what GBR is doing more effectively. Alex Hynes: It is probably worth saying that there are three key mechanisms by which GBR will be held to account. First, it will have to balance its duties in law. Secondly, the business plan will need to be signed off by the Secretary of State and its delivery will be monitored by the ORR. Thirdly, there is the licence. One thing I would say is that the railways are slightly different from the national health service in so far as we have a revenue line of more than £10 billion per annum. We want Great British Railways to be a commercial organisation that can respond to the market with operational independence at arm’s length from Ministers. However, it is the duties, the business plan and the licence by which GBR will be held to account.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Town of Culture and City of Culture Competitions · Hansard source

  More

  Plymouth Culture has launched its bid for Plymouth to be the city of culture 2029, and I wonder if the Secretary of State realises that there has never been a southern city of culture, let alone a south-western city of culture. Does she agree that the city of culture 2029 would be the perfect opportunity to rectify this?