Railways Bill

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Great Western Railway fares are 2.2 times higher than those of European operators for similar lengths. Rail users in my constituency will be all too familiar with this reality, regularly paying more than £100 for a return ticket to London. Since the Labour Government came into power, we have seen the power of the unions once again, with eye-watering salary increases but no expectations to improve productivity. This means that on the line down to Devon, contracts were not changed when salaries were increased. This would have cleared up the mess that is the lack of seven-day-a-week contracts. Try travelling to Westminster on a Sunday! The creation of Great British Railways is being held up as a panacea to any such issues with our railway. Having served the last year or so on the Transport Committee, where we have been tracking the progress of these plans, I remain unconvinced by the Bill.

I gave my maiden speech during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, the mechanism through which the renationalisation of the railway was enabled. What I said then about that Bill remains true as we debate this one. I said that it was

“a Bill that seems to indicate ideological time travel back to the nationalised railway system of the past and a mistaken belief that state-run institutions are the answer to all our woes. Our railway system needs to drive forward into the middle of the 21st century, not creep backwards to the 1970s.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 237.]

As a child of the ’80s, I remember the old British Rail. Aside from the excitement of travelling on a 125 between Plymouth and my grandparents in Somerset, I do not recall it being any better than the privatised system we have today.

In the development of Great British Railways, the Government must work with industry. There are real concerns that without a strong independent rail regulator, this Bill will squeeze out private investment. Great British Railways will become the second biggest employer in the country—hardly an agile organisation—and it will be calling the shots. As a result, the state-owned operator will be chosen over private sector rivals. The Office of Rail and Road will see its power significantly altered, and some might even say reduced, by this Bill. It is arguable that it will lose its teeth. I would simply urge the Government to keep passengers front and centre of the Bill, but I am not sure that the quango regulator that they are setting up will be in passengers’ best interests.

Private investment extends to rail freight, which is competing not only with state owned operators but with road haulage. The Rail Freight Group warns that the Bill risks driving the sector into decline, costing the UK economy up to £ 2.5 billion and adding 7 million additional HGV movements to the UK road network. While the Government have committed to introducing a statutory duty on GBR to promote the use of rail freight, supported by an overall growth target, I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to clarify how the duty will operate in practice and how it will ensure that GBR does not give preferential treatment to state-owned operators. Where the Bill places freight in the hierarchy of railway line use is critical, but it is not yet explicit on that, which is concerning.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend is concerned, as I am, about how Ministers will square their responsibility to the trade unions—who, of course, fund the Labour party —with the producer interest, and whether she has any reflections on their past failure to get that balance right.

[Rebecca Smith]

My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which is that the very good conditions that private companies have been forced into by trade unions will end up TUPE-ed across to these state employees and, ultimately, the best conditions will be the ones that get delivered to the most, all in that huge new employer.

Many Members from across the House have highlighted the importance of connecting underserved areas, and nowhere in the country is that case more powerfully made than in the south-west. Before closing, I would like to highlight to the Minister two examples affecting my constituency. Both featured in my maiden speech, so I know he is familiar with them. I will continue to champion them, as well as the need to secure the railway line at Dawlish.

Many CrossCountry trains currently pass through Ivybridge station without stopping, because the platform is too short. That forces local people to travel by bus or car to Plymouth, Totnes or Tiverton, making rail travel far less convenient. I have secured with local stakeholders the funding for a feasibility study for the extension. That modest project would make a huge difference to our community and I hope it will not be hindered by the Bill.

I am also committed to securing a Plymouth metro, including plans for a station in Plympton in my constituency. Plympton’s 30,000 residents have been without a station for more than 60 years, and it would be transformative for that part of my patch. Both Plympton and Ivybridge have many residents working at Devonport naval base and at the growing defence hubs in Turnchapel and Langage. The Government have promised billions of pounds to the city as part of a defence deal, but if that deal does not include funding for transport, what is the point? I urge the Government to ensure a joined-up approach in delivering the railway that the city and surrounding communities need to deliver on the defence role that the Government want.

I support the efforts to improve our railways and to bring ticket prices down, but a simple return to a nationalised British Rail is not the answer. As Conservatives, we understand the importance of retaining a strong role for the public sector through open access, protecting rail freight, improving efficiency and providing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Many colleagues have been waiting for a while to speak. To enable me to get every colleague in, I need to drop the speaking limit to three minutes and encourage Members not to take interventions. The next person to speak will be Dr Scott Arthur with three minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Previous Conservative Governments were committed to repairing the railway line at Dawlish, which is vital to Devon and Cornwall’s economic growth, yet this Labour Government have said that they will complete the rail resilience programme only if and when survey work shows that it is needed. Given the likelihood that the Treasury’s emergency fund will have been spent on public sector pay increases, can the Secretary of State guarantee that funding will be found for resilience works, if they have not been planned and committed to as part of a fiscal event, should an unexpected incident or landslip take out the line at Dawlish?

[Heidi Alexander]

We are still funding drainage works and survey work on the Dawlish line. Four phases of work have already been completed. The cliffs are much more resilient than they were a number of years ago, when we experienced catastrophic failure. We have paused funding, but we will continue to keep under review the information that comes back from the survey so that we can continue to provide a reliable and resilient service for people in the south-west.

Road and Rail Projects

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I cannot possibly compete with those railway puns, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituents have such a strong advocate for public transport and investment in the rail network. He is right to say that the midlands rail hub can have transformative impacts, and I thank him for all that he has done in championing the scheme over the months. He has been such a positive Member of this House.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, but I am really disappointed that the TavyRail scheme has received a red light. We have heard quite a lot about the investment in Devon and Somerset. The Government are delivering a huge amount of investment in Plymouth, which is welcome, but without a rail link between Tavistock and Plymouth that can continue further into my constituency at Ivybridge, I struggle to see how the investment in defence and housing will be fulfilled. Given that the Secretary of State is committing at least £725 billion for infrastructure over the next decade, I would be interested to know why she could not find £1.5 million to fund the business case for TavyRail.

[Heidi Alexander]

We are keeping a number of schemes under review, and we will set out a pipeline of future infrastructure schemes that we believe are worthy, but which have not been funded in this spending review. I am happy to receive more detail about the particular scheme that the hon. Lady raises.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

I support the amendments that would introduce reviews, record keeping and mapping. Some of that may be onerous, but maybe some money can be shifted in the same department from a couple of dual carriageways or bypasses to make it possible. The correct hierarchy of users of public transport and the streets needs to be maintained. If we put an absolute moratorium on floating bus stops to allow for continuous cycle lanes, that would involve more danger for cyclists. It might involve taking space away from cyclists to maintain space for vehicles, and that would not maintain the correct hierarchy of danger.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Am I right that the hon. Lady is suggesting that a partially sighted person or a disabled person is somehow lower down the hierarchy than a cyclist, simply because they are on a bus rather than walking or cycling?

[Siân Berry]

Let me clarify. Absolutely not: the hierarchy starts with people who are on foot or wheeling, and it moves down, via cycling, with motor vehicles at the bottom.

I would like to read out the evidence from the London Cycling Campaign. Its design solutions would ensure that the roads are safe, and many of them involve having extra space. The evidence sets out that

“extra space could also mean wider pavements, better sightlines”,

for cyclists who need to give way and

“less fraught interactions at floating bus stops between different mode users.”

The London Cycling Campaign argues that we should

“ensure bus services, walking, wheeling and cycling all get appropriate priority and capacity in funding, design guidance and on the ground in terms of physical space. And that likely means being more willing to reduce space and priority for private motor vehicles in more locations.”

That hierarchy is what I referred to. Where things are really difficult, it may be the right solution in a lot of cases to keep the bus on the main carriageway and make the other vehicles wait. However, that is for the design guidance. None of us is a traffic engineer—unless a Member wants to interrupt and point out that they are. That guidance must be produced in consultation with disabled people, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted, and it must also have the hierarchy in mind. Those designing the guidance should be much more willing to take space away from vehicles and to keep buses on the carriageway, if that is necessary to provide sufficient space to ensure that the roads are safe and accessible.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

I was just coming to that. The hon. Lady is quite right, but I am talking about the up-front capital cost. The lifetime running cost may well be cheaper for an electric bus, but the creator has to finance their capital cost on day one, whereas the lifetime operating costs are spread over the effective lifetime of the asset, which, for an electric bus, is an interesting question, actually. The lifetime of the structure of the bus may be 15 or 20 years, but we are not yet sure what the effective lifetime of the battery component of the bus is, and whether or not it needs to be replaced after about 10 years. The data is not particularly robust on that. If it means that we have to change out enormous battery banks during the operating process, that would be a significant additional secondary capex cost.

The Department for Transport figures for March 2024 say that there are 29,400 buses used by local bus companies. If we are going to replace all of those, that would be an £8 billion investment. That is very significant, and it is not considered in the impact assessment. There are some long-term savings, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion quite rightly pointed out. It is not just the differential in costs between electric and diesel; there are reduced maintenance costs as well. There are many fewer moving parts with an electric vehicle as well as the lower fuel cost, but the capex costs are front-loaded, and we cannot ignore that. Have the Government considered the financing consequences of imposing large, increased, front-loaded capex costs on bus companies? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

The second issue here is that through the current drafting, the Government are inevitably picking a winner in terms of technology for low-carbon vehicles, because it focuses on tailpipe emissions and ignores whole-life carbon assessments. That is important; again, we must have a balance of approach here. There is a significant benefit in zero tailpipe emissions, which is primarily about air quality as opposed to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.

There are very significant emissions during the construction of large-scale battery-operated buses, and there are alternatives under development. In the life cycle of the vehicle, if we take into account its construction, operation and disassembly, it is likely that new technologies, particularly ones using synthetic fuels, could be lower in carbon terms, albeit emitting Euro VI equivalent particulates at the tailpipe. The Bill denies an opportunity for that market to develop.

There are currently artificially-produced fuels made using renewable energy that have no net CO₂ emissions over their life cycle. If they are interested, I can explain the basic process to Members: it uses carbon capture plus hydrogen from renewable electricity, synthesised via processes such as the Fischer-Tropsch or methanol synthesis, to create e-diesel, e-kerosene, e-methanol or e-gasoline. The key benefit is that it works with existing engines and fuel infrastructure, and avoids the enormous carbon emissions from wasting existing built infrastructure and machinery.

We need to understand that we have “spent” an enormous amount of carbon and greenhouse gases in constructing the 29,400 vehicles—buses—already out there, many of which have a natural life that could be extended significantly. We do not even need to convert them: we could just pour a synthetic fuel into the same bus, saving all the carbon associated with the manufacturing of new, large-scale hydrogen or electricity buses. At the very least, that would be a significant transitional material to extend the use of existing, or pre-manufactured, vehicles.

We try to reduce, reuse and recycle, and that would be an absolutely classic case of a good thing, and yet the clause, I am afraid to say, prohibits the development of that market. I suspect that that is not the intention of the Department or the Minister, but that is what will happen.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I want to expand a little on what my hon. Friend was saying about sustainable fuels that are, literally, drop-in fuel alternatives. Anyone watching the British Grand Prix this weekend knows that motor racing is beginning to use such fuel. There is real appetite for manufacturing it in the UK, but regulations get in the way of that happening at the moment. I have secured a meeting to share that with the Minister’s colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy, because it feels like a significant opportunity that would impact not only public transport but, in due course—I appreciate that this is not within the scope of the Bill—general users of vehicles. Ultimately, I think we all agree that we want to get to net zero from the perspective of emissions from vehicles; potentially, however, we need an alternative third way to ensure that the transition can take place.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

I accept that currently synthetic fuels are expensive, because they are at the development stage, but I do not believe that the Government’s intention is for the clause to write them out. I recognise that the Minister is unlikely to tear up his clause on my say-so, but I would be grateful if he discussed the issue further with his Department.

I will leave it to the Minister to consider amendments 32 and 33, and the same can be said for amendments 78 and 58, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Finally, therefore, amendment 63 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to produce a report assessing the adequacy of funding for the replacement of emitting buses with zero emission versions.

The amendment is right to focus once again on the central issue of funding, because that is totally absent from the existing drafting of the clause, but—a fatal “but” from my perspective—the amendment focuses on the LTAs. In fact, however, in the vast majority of cases, the cost lies with private operators and not with the local transport authority. The amendment makes no mention of what should be done for them, and that lets the Government off the hook, frankly, of addressing the real problem, which is the bus companies and the impact on them, as opposed to the local transport authorities. That is probably an inadvertent oversight, but I just point it out.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

We are getting to some of the more interesting parts of the Bill now. The clause amends relevant sections of the Transport Act 2000 on enhanced partnerships and plans to help authorities better reflect the needs of disabled users of local bus services and the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. Subsection (2) inserts proposed new section 138CA into the Transport Act 2000, which provides that:

“An enhanced partnership scheme may specify…requirements about enabling persons with disabilities to travel on local services”—

and then we get the good phrase—

“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”,

including for taxi guarantee schemes. It also states:

“Before making an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services”,

and it includes definitions for the purpose of the clause.

Subsection (3) pops proposed new paragraph (ba) into section 138F(6), on consultation. It includes disabled users or prospective users of local services, or organisations representing disabled users, among the list of people or entities that authorities must consult before making an enhanced partnership scheme—so, good progress there.

Subsection (4) inserts proposed new subsections (9) and (10) into section 138K of the Transport Act. It states:

“Before varying an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme as varied will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services…to which the scheme as proposed to be varied relates.”

It is important that the schemes are designed to be widely accessible, including to those with disabilities. Consultation with affected groups in the design of services, as anticipated by subsection (3), is the right approach, and the clause makes clear the importance of designing services with the needs of persons with disabilities in mind. I ask the Minister: what consultation with groups representing persons with disabilities was undertaken prior to the drafting of the Bill? Although I welcome the clause, did the consultation include reference to floating bus stops, as anticipated in clause 30? If so, did the Government take account of that input?

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is great to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Dame Siobhain. I want to follow up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said and ask a few additional questions, particularly about the provision in clause 18 for persons with disabilities.

I obviously welcome the inclusion of this clause in the Bill—we clearly want to ensure that public transport is as accessible for all as possible—but I am slightly concerned that, in a way, it provides false hope. Subsection (2) states:

“An enhanced partnership scheme may specify”,

so it is a “may”, rather than a “must”. It is nice to have that consultation, but there is an opportunity for the local authority or whoever is providing the bus service not to do it. The clause allows for a consultation, but there are no guarantees that what disabled people want will happen.

I am also slightly concerned about the taxi guarantee scheme. I do not know whether hon. Members have experienced the same thing as me, but my constituency of South West Devon is an interesting mix of urban and rural. It might be thought that large chunks of Plymouth are technically easily accessible, but the Access Plymouth minibus system does not even work across the city, let alone go into the rural parts of the constituency. Out in the South Hams and West Devon, which is a different local authority, the bus services are typical rural bus services: they are not very reliable or frequent.

It is also worth saying that taxis are not reliable either. Just this weekend, a local taxi service that runs out of the village put a post on social media saying, “We’re fully booked this evening.” Even able-bodied people, let alone people with disabilities who are trying to benefit from a taxi guarantee scheme, need to book in advance, so I question the feasibility of delivering on this clause.

We are not only saying that bus services will be reliable for persons with disability; we are offering them a taxi guarantee scheme. Yet we do not know—I assume the Minister will be able to explain this—what assessment has been made of the wider public transport picture or whether the taxis exist to provide the scheme, particularly in our rural communities. I know the Bill seeks to address those places. Ultimately, we need to ensure that we manage the expectations of those we are trying to help with the Bill.

I ask the Minister, what consultation has been held on, and what thought has been given to, the provision of rural services for people with disabilities? The taxi guarantee scheme is a great idea, but is it deliverable? What analysis has been made of that? Secondly, what might stop a local authority from delivering on this, and what assessment has been made of potential obstacles? Apart from the supply of buses and taxis, are there other reasons why a local transport authority might not be able to deliver this?

If it is that important to ensure that persons with disability can access public transport, which is something that I think we all agree we want, then the obvious question is: why does the legislation not say that an enhanced partnership scheme “must” do it? Why does the Bill say just that it “may”? It seems that there is a conflicting ambition here. Perhaps I have answered my own question in saying that there might not be the supply, but if we want to ensure a better world for persons with disability, I am intrigued as to why it does not say that a scheme must do this.

[Mr Kohler]

The clause, added during scrutiny in the Lords, is a welcome and valuable improvement to the Bill, but we would like to know what consultation was held with disabled groups before it was drafted. Although the changes it makes might seem modest on paper, they have the potential to make a significant difference in improving accessibility across our bus network.

Subsection (2) allows enhanced partnership schemes to specify requirements to ensure that disabled people can travel independently, safely, and in reasonable comfort on local bus services. The inclusion to allow the specification of a taxi guarantee scheme is also welcome. Although we share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for South West Devon, such a scheme may prove to be vital in ensuring that disabled and other vulnerable users feel comfortable and confident in using the bus. Subsection (3) strengthens the consultation process and ensures that disabled users or organisations representing them are consulted before any EP scheme is made. That is not just good practice; it is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone.

Subsection (4) mirrors that requirement when enhanced partnership schemes are varied, and guarantees that the accessibility is not forgotten as schemes evolve. Authorities must once again consider whether changes enable disabled people to travel independently, safely, and in comfort. These are considered but welcome changes. Accessibility cannot be an afterthought; it must be embedded from the outset and considered at every stage of decision making. These welcome measures help to support that.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is good to see you back in your rightful place, Dr Allin-Khan. Clause 23 is not a controversial element of the Bill, so I will not detain the Committee for too long. It gives local transport authorities and Transport for London sensible new powers to enforce against fare evasion.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I think there is some slight confusion among Committee members because my hon. Friend said clause 23 when he meant clause 27.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention; I stand corrected, as I was talking about clause 27. I do not know where clause 23 came from—my subconscious.

Subsection (2) clarifies that regulations can address the powers of an inspector outside of their authority’s area. Subsections (3) and (4) clarify the definition of an inspector. That is all fine.

Clause 28 is the largest clause in the Bill, so although it is not particularly contentious—we are substantially supportive of it—I would not be taking my duty seriously if I totally skipped over it. I will therefore pick and mix and hope that people bear with me while I take a little time to consider how it deals with local transport authority byelaws. It amends the Transport Act 2000, sets out the power of LTAs to make byelaws, and lists the various areas that can be covered.

Proposed new section 144A(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act is relevant to Liberal Democrat amendment 67. The byelaws set out in proposed new subsection (1) relate to travel on services, the maintenance of order and the conduct of persons while using services. Those are the areas of interest about which organisations will have the authority to create byelaws.

Proposed new subsection (2) goes into more detail and states that the byelaws relate to issues including tickets, the evasion of payment of fares, interference with or obstruction of local services, and the prohibition of vaping, smoking and nuisance on local services. I highlight that list, because Liberal Democrat amendment 67 would add “sustained anti-social auditory disturbance” to it.

The two subsections are dealt with differently: proposed new subsection (1) is an exhaustive list setting out the scope for byelaws, but proposed new subsection (2) is a non-exhaustive list of provisions that may be considered. Therefore, proposed new subsection (1) does not allow the consideration of issues relating to noise disturbance and would need to be amended to include that. In my submission, however, proposed new subsection (2) would not need to be amended because it is a non-exhaustive list, so we could go on forever adding things that annoy us on public transport—I would quite like to settle down and consider that. Although I share the Liberal Democrats’ fury and annoyance at antisocial auditory disturbance, I do not think it is necessary to add it to the non-exhaustive list in proposed new subsection (2).

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

After the Liberal Democrat contribution, I was missing my headphones—[Interruption.] I say that with love. I thank Committee members for their further comments on the powers to make byelaws contained in the Bill.

The Government are focused on tackling antisocial behaviour. Improving the safety of our bus network is one of the Government’s aims in reforming buses, because that is critical to giving passengers, particularly women and girls, the confidence they need to take the bus. Different powers are currently available for different transport modes, and the powers that certain local transport authorities hold for light or heavy rail are not in place for buses. That has created a situation where local transport authorities rely on a patchwork of powers to enforce against poor behaviour, and some authorities are unable to act at all against those committing antisocial behaviour. The Bill remedies that situation by providing powers to create and enforce bus byelaws.

On the question of what constitutes antisocial behaviour, the Bill lists specific behaviours that byelaws can cover, such as vaping, smoking and interfering with or obstructing services and vehicles. My Department plans to issue non-statutory guidance about the content of byelaws that will take the existing railway byelaws as a starting point, which should help to ensure consistency across different transport modes.

[Rebecca Smith]

Given the Minister is comparing the rail system with buses, and saying that he wants to bring buses into line with the railway, I am intrigued about who will do that enforcement. We have the British Transport police on the railway, and there are signs everywhere and a phone number that someone can call, but at the moment on buses—I have been on ones where antisocial behaviour is taking place—it ultimately falls to the driver to enforce against that. Is that what the Minister is saying will happen as a result of this legislation? Will there be additional powers or will an additional force be created to enable that enforcement to take place—or is that entirely down to LTAs to figure out for themselves?

[Simon Lightwood]

The hon. Lady will have seen in the Bill that there is an element of ensuring that bus drivers and other persons in bus companies are given training on antisocial behaviour, particularly violence against women and girls, so that when it is safe to act, they can intervene in the interests of public and driver safety.

I talked earlier about the potential for transport safety officers in local transport authority areas, not just among bus providers. Ultimately, the design of that and how it is enforced, depending on the byelaws, will of course be a matter for the local transport authorities themselves, but this is about giving them the powers and allowing them to put those byelaws in place. Obviously, they need to be enforced. Sometimes it is also a matter of communicating this stuff. We have all been on other modes of transport where it is not adhered to.

As I said, my Department plans to issue non-statutory guidance on the content of the byelaws. That guidance will take the form of existing railway byelaws and is expected to emphasise the “educate, engage and enforce” approach. As I said in my opening remarks, I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon—despite my jest—on the need to take action against antisocial behaviour, but powers already exist to take action against playing music or videos loudly on buses. The training that I talked about a moment ago will only help to raise awareness of that, both with passengers and with drivers. In relation to enforcement at bus stops and stands, there are areas where divergence is expected in enforcement practices. That is likely to include stops and stands, which by their nature are harder to define than parts of the railway estate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Local transport authority byelaws

Amendment proposed: 67, in clause 28, page 24, line 37, after “nuisance” insert

“, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.”—(Mr Kohler.)

This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

The new clause seeks to strike a balance and ensure that detailed national guidance is developed and applied to fully enable blind, visually impaired and disabled passengers to access bus services safely while continuing to protect cyclists. I have met groups representing both communities and if there is one thing they all agree on, it is that the present state of affairs is unacceptable.

[Rebecca Smith]

I am intrigued: does the hon. Member agree that we also have an issue where pedestrian crossings land straight on to cycle routes on busy main roads? Although it is outside the scope of the Bill, would his proposed review also look at that? For example, when a visually impaired person or someone using a wheelchair crosses Vauxhall Bridge Road, which is very busy, they are sent straight into a cycle lane that cuts across it. Does he agree that, in an ideal world, it would be nice to address that too?

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

I do not disagree with anything the hon. Member said. I do not have in my head the financial details associated with rural hubs, but it makes more commercial sense as a matter of principle, although it would probably not be profitable, to have a hub-and-spoke approach rather than an hourly service for every village. I do not know whether the hon. Member has counted the villages in North Norfolk, but there are well over 100 in Broadland and Fakenham, so that would be a challenge for any provider.

The Opposition support the concept of new clause 35 if the finances—the missing link—add up, but we question the need for it, because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent local authorities from doing what it sets out.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I am conscious that we are finishing in three minutes, so I will limit my comments to give the Minister some time. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, I query the premise that public is better than private. The hon. Member for Warrington South mentioned the ability to provide a better service than existing franchise services, but I want to put on record that we can still get £2 fares in South West Devon. There is not necessarily a concrete need for a franchise; it is not necessarily a magic wand. I will fit my other comments in somewhere else, because I am conscious of time.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thought the Liberal Democrats were the party of devolution, but they have a strange habit of wanting to tell local areas what to do and how to do it. Rural bus hubs are not yet widespread and the available data on their impact is limited. I have already outlined that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to improving buses. Local transport authorities in rural areas better understand the needs of their local communities, so it is right that they are given the opportunity to determine what is right for their areas.

I have already spoken about the different models for bus franchising, such as the Jersey model. The pilots will explore the models that may suit rural areas over metropolitan areas. In a rural setting, bus franchising could provide the opportunity to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network, ensuring that it links rural areas to key locations and access to onward travel options.

The Government are also supporting local transport authorities to improve the viability and sustainability of demand-responsive transport. That may be the most viable option in rural areas. The Government are gathering insights from the rural mobility fund pilots and are developing best practice guidance—a comprehensive resource for setting up and managing DRT schemes.

Beyond that, the Department’s support programme includes a focus on rural-specific challenges, such as the dedicated Bus Centre of Excellence’s conference on quality bus services in July and our plans for franchising pilots. The Department understands that there are barriers to SMEs accessing franchise networks. That is why we are listening to the sector about ways to ensure that disproportionate paperwork requirements do not hinder SMEs bidding for franchising contracts.

<Railway Services: South-West>

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing this debate, and I thank all the Members who have contributed. We are very familiar with this issue; I have taken part in many such debates myself.

Let me respond to a couple of comments. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) alerted us to West Somerset Railway, which is an illustration of how, oftentimes, the south-west is seen as a holiday destination rather than somewhere where the railway line is needed as an economic driver. Having been on West Somerset Railway, I am particularly fond of it, but it is not good enough that it is all she has access to, in addition to Tiverton Parkway railway station.

The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) highlighted the upcoming opening of the Mid Cornwall Metro, which we should acknowledge came from the previous Government’s levelling up funding, and was delivered by Conservative-led Cornwall council. It is a clear illustration of how smaller metros can be delivered, and it would be great to see more of them across the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) raised challenges around Bedwyn station in his constituency, and we have also had contributions from the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) and for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). It is really good to hear perspectives from across all their constituencies.

It is important that I begin by recognising the dedicated workforce we have across the railway industry. Obviously, in the last few months, there has been a huge amount of noise about railways, particularly around increases in salaries and so on. I do not know about other Members, but I have had at least one constituent highlight the fact that, if we are not careful, we could demonise the valuable workers who we need in our train system, so I want to acknowledge on the record the fact that the whole train system is vital to our country. We have to acknowledge that, but we still need to have this debate and represent other voices across our constituencies.

We have had three debates on the railways in recent months—or, at least, I have taken part in three debates. This includes my maiden speech, which took place in the passenger railway Bill debate—it would be remiss of me, having spoken to the Minister earlier, not to mention “The Loco-Motion”, which, if hon. Members are interested, I referred to in my maiden speech. In the last two months, we have also had debates on both the railway in Devon and Old Oak Common, so it should be really clear to the Minister and his team that this is something that the south-west is particularly passionate about.

I have to admit that I have two hats on—not only am I representing the official Opposition today, but I am a Member from Devon, so I feel a lot of what has been said this morning very deeply. We must also acknowledge the meetings that Ministers have had, and have been very open-handed in. There have been open conversations on this issue, but there is still some way to go, as has been clear today. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot summarised some of those key challenges particularly well in his speech, and he spoke strongly about the funding we need for the fifth phase of Dawlish. Otherwise, it would ultimately be a waste of money; we have done everything that can been achieved without completing that work.

Old Oak Common needs no further explanation—it has been covered widely, as has the challenge of wi-fi accessibility, and the wider context of roads and buses in the south-west.

Let us not forget, though, that between 2010 and 2024, the Conservatives increased investment by £100 billion, so it is not fair to say that nothing has happened. The railway system is something that we have all been working on over the last few decades. Included in that total was £165 million on the south-west rail resilience programme, which has already been mentioned. It was a bold decision to reallocate HS2 phase 2 funds towards restoring our railways. We would have seen some real benefits from that in the south-west. It has been cancelled because the new Government have said that there is no funding for it. However, I note that they have managed to reinstate phase 2 between Crewe and Manchester, which I assume uses the money that would ultimately have been used for projects such as the TavyRail between Tavistock and Plymouth. I am interested in hearing the Minister comment on that. How can the Government say that the Restoring your Railway was unfunded if they have been able to bring the Crewe to Manchester line back into play?

We have also seen the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 come through. It has been mentioned this morning, and I will not speak much about it, other than to say that we believe it is an ideological piece of legislation. We were disappointed that the Government rejected our reasoned amendment, which would have ensured that, when terminating existing franchise agreements, the Government would have at least considered operating performance. Instead, we have had inflation-busting pay rises without productivity agreements being secured. Most recently, on 12 December, the latest Office of Rail and Road figures, from July to September, showed that since the increase in those salaries, we have seen decreased performance, decreased punctuality, increased cancellations and decreased public performance measures. I do not want to cast aspersions, but they do seem to be slightly linked.

As I draw to a close, I want to lay out some questions for the Minister. Some of them have been touched on before, but it is a perfect opportunity to reiterate them. On 11 November, in the Chamber, I raised the issue of the lack of Sundays in the Great Western Railway contracts, which has a massive impact on rail services across the south-west. It was raised again in the Westminster Hall debate in December, and in November the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), said that she would return to the House with an update. I would be interested to know if there has been any progress in those negotiations.

Is the Minister convinced that the spending decisions for the £30 million Old Oak Common mitigations, which have also been mentioned today, are best for passengers in the south-west? Although many hon. Members have argued today that that £30 million may need to be paid to make Old Oak Common happen, I do not believe that residents across the south-west are necessarily seeing the benefits. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that not all south-west services will have to stop at Old Oak Common? I ask that to reiterate the points that have been made already. Will the Minister also confirm that the HS2 phase 2, Crewe to Manchester route is fully funded? That announcement was made earlier on in this Parliament.

Finally, if I may—and if the room will humour me—I have one question that remains unanswered about my constituency. CrossCountry trains do not stop at Ivybridge train station in my constituency, which is fully ready as a park and ride. Currently, only Great Western Railway is committed to doing that, and serves it with 16 trains a day. My constituency has the new and growing town of Sherford, plus the suburbs of Plympton and Plymstock, all of which would benefit from Ivybridge having up to 45 trains stopping a day. Will the Minister commit to looking further into that, and could we work together on pressuring CrossCountry to deliver that for my constituents?

I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate today. I do not think that the issue of railways in the south-west is going anywhere fast. [Laughter] That was totally unintended—turns out I am naturally funny after all. Ultimately, I think the Minister will be hearing more from us. I know I speak on behalf of Members from across the south-west when I say that I want to know that the Government are listening. I hope the Government appreciate that we are not going to go away, because the issue is incredibly important to the entire region, which has so much potential for the economy of the United Kingdom.

Old Oak Common Station

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson]

I absolutely agree. Although joining up London with the north and the midlands is a laudable aim, there is a real risk that the west and south Wales could be left out. The amount of money being spent on HS2 is not matched by rail investment towards the west, as those of us who represent constituencies there are well aware.

My first question to the Minister is: what assessment has been made of the fixed-term construction disruption to the economies of the constituencies affected, including my own in Cheltenham? What assessment has been made of the clear risk that the disruption caused by construction is wider than that which is currently being reported, with perhaps extra days of construction work leading to more cancellations? What discussions have Ministers had with Network Rail about whether the speed limit associated with the construction work could be 80 mph rather than 60 mph?

The second area to explore is how Old Oak Common might become a station that serves our constituencies, rather than simply making things less convenient. That is a much more complex discussion, and those of us who have seen the maps will know that that is still up for debate. Rail industry professionals suggest that there is an opportunity to either improve services or significantly mitigate the impact of the potential disruption, but the core problem is clear. At a time when the national rail network is struggling so badly and the Government are promising a brighter future under Great British Railways, our constituents must be able to see benefits.

I am certain that most Members present will agree that those additional four to seven minutes must be offset, and Old Oak Common has the potential to become a significant interchange, enabling travellers from the west and south Wales to switch to the London transport network earlier, perhaps via the Elizabeth line or London Overground services. Achieving that aim would ensure smooth onward journeys, not just into central London but, if it is done right, elsewhere. What assurances can the Minister give us that the station interchange will be just as convenient as Paddington, if not more so? Is the convenience of the interchange with the Elizabeth line as secure as Members have been led to believe in some of the briefings, or is that not yet guaranteed?

If an interchange to the Elizabeth line is secured, can the Minister tell me the anticipated journey time to central London to and from my Cheltenham constituency after those works are complete? Can the Minister also confirm whether technical studies on interchanging with overground services have begun, so that we can work out what is possible? Nothing that Members are hearing so far suggests that the technical work has been properly considered, or even whether it has been started at any level. If studies have begun, what work has been done to cost future works? If they have not, when will those studies take place?

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

The rail Minister has expressed the view that enabling those of us from the south-west to connect to the midlands and Birmingham would be one mitigation, but does the hon. Member agree that that is not a good enough result for the overground services? Frankly, we need connections into London, because we can already get to the midlands and the services that HS2 would be offering.

[Max Wilkinson]

I can see why the hon. Member’s constituents in Devon would not be interested in going to London before going to the midlands. She makes a very good point.

If those studies have not begun, what work has been done to cost the future works? If not, when will those studies take place? For those whose journeys are inevitably taking them to the area around Paddington, what reassurances are there that congestion west of Paddington can be dealt with in order to maintain capacity?

My third point is about restoring trust in our railways by making more general improvements to passenger experience—I want to mention some hyper-local issues, which I hope the Minister will listen to. Although there will undoubtedly be a period of disruption and uncertainty, there are also some clear opportunities to improve rail services. Five-carriage inter-city trains routinely run in excess of passenger capacity for large parts of journeys to the west. Will the Minister confirm that, as part of the mitigation of the Old Oak Common disruption, more rolling stock will be found to ensure that passengers do not routinely have to endure journeys in which they are forced to stand for unacceptably long periods of time? I have stood with pensioners and vulnerable people next to the loo for longer than an hour on journeys west from Paddington.

Will the Minister confirm that those of us who use trains for business can expect wi-fi improvements? Although the current GWR service offers wi-fi on board, it routinely proves useless for large parts of the journey, which is definitely a drag on the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. This is the second debate in a week that we have had on railway lines. I will not repeat everything that I said in last week’s debate, which was just about Devon, but we touched on Old Oak Common last week and I am keen to do so again today.

It is worth reminding anybody who is listening or reading the Hansard report that it was the coalition Government of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives who first published the White Paper for HS2 in 2010. There has been quite a lot of Conservative Government-bashing in this debate so far, but let us be realistic that it was a coalition decision. However, I will remain friends with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, with whom I work across Devon, and speak about the topic before us.

I will repeat one thing I said last week, because it is important: Devon and the wider south-west are not just holiday destinations. As the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) says, we have a thriving local economy. We are keen to make sure that it grows. Anything that hinders rail travel in and out of the south-west will have a problematic impact.

It is also worth noting that in the past few years we have celebrated achieving a three-hour train trip between Plymouth and London. I benefit from that when I get the 6.55 am train on a Monday, and no doubt many businesspeople and others travelling to London benefit in the same way. It is incredibly disappointing that that much sought-after shorter journey time will be put to one side over the next few years. My constituency of South West Devon is in exactly the same position as the constituencies of other hon. Members who have spoken. I can see no material benefits at the moment, except perhaps easier access to the Elizabeth line and, I suppose, Heathrow airport, for those of us fortunate enough to go on holiday from time to time.

The point to which I want to draw the most attention has already been covered, but is worth mentioning again: the £30 million mitigation, which the Government seem so proud of, to reassure people and compensate those who will be disrupted by the works at Old Oak Common. As has already been made clear, that will essentially pay for depot changes and electrification closer to London, so I struggle to see how it will compensate my constituents and others who live in the south-west.

Last week, not knowing the breakdown, I gave the Minister some suggestions for what that money could be spent on to make a material impact, including wi-fi. Finalising the business case for the Tavistock-Plymouth line, which would create a great horseshoe around the far reach of Devon, would need £1.5 million, which is not that much out of £30 million. Perhaps some of those things would be adequate compensation. CrossCountry currently refuses to stop at Ivybridge in my constituency, because it claims that the platforms are not long enough. I am not convinced that that is actually the problem, but would it not be great to use the money to extend the platforms at Ivybridge? Can the Minister commit this morning to reassessing the £30 million mitigation pot so that the south-west—and Wales, which other hon. Members have mentioned—see some benefits?

I am also very concerned about the communications. The rail Minister in the other place came back to us very quickly after a meeting about communications, but the works will have an impact on a variety of weekends and days. I am struggling to get my head around that; no doubt other Members are, too. We need a commitment to making sure that the changes are explicitly communicated to residents and tourists alike.

My final thought is about a subject that has come up in the Transport Committee, of which I am a member. Great Western Railway is a big user of delay repay. Ultimately, delay repay is at the cost of the taxpayer. I do not want to be completely negative, but there will be inevitable delays on top of the lengthened train trips as a result of construction work. Who will pay for the inevitable increased delay repay claims? I assume it will be the good people of the south-west and the rest of the country. It is worth looking at the issue in the round and acknowledging that there is not just inconvenience, but huge cost.