Baggy Shanker MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Dowd. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson)—my fantastic MP—for her intervention. She is absolutely right: it is a partnership of investment, but people need to feel safe in our city centre. As my constituent John told me, we can see how much effort and investment are being put into our city, from building housing to breathing new life into the shops and spaces in our city centre. I want every single resident and visitor to be able to take their family out for the day, meet up with friends and enjoy what the city centre has to offer, but the long-term success of regeneration depends on the community feeling safe to enjoy our city centre. As John also told me, he has real concerns about the safety of his family when they are out and about in Derby. Seeing drug users loitering on St Peter’s Street and on paths by the River Derwent has put him off popping to the shops and has stopped his wife going out running in our city centre altogether.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to speak under your chairship again, Mr Dowd. I thank all Members for their contributions and interventions. I remind the Lib Dem spokesperson that the UK extends beyond London’s boundaries, and I remind the shadow Minister that the debate was about town and city centre safety—maybe he picked up the wrong notes. Collectively, we have managed to highlight the serious issues that constituents across the UK want Ministers to hear. I put on the record my thanks to the Minister for meeting the family of Gurvinder Singh Johal, as she did recently, and for her reassurance that the Government have already increased policing numbers by 2,400. I look forward to getting that number to 13,000 during this Parliament, as she says.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The police need to work with local authorities to tackle these issues sensitively.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is simple: if they are illegal, they should be banned. Unfortunately, John and his family are not alone. I hear those concerns reflected at my surgeries and in my inbox time and again. Families such as John’s tell me that they are worried about the drug and alcohol abuse they see on our streets.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right: such shops do not help other businesses and residents, and do not make our city centres a safe environment, so more measures are needed to tackle that. Last year, there was another really difficult day for our city. Gurvinder Singh Johal, also known as Danny, was tragically murdered as he was going about his business in a Lloyds Bank branch on a Tuesday afternoon. It was utterly devastating for his family. When crimes like that happen in plain sight, in places that we use regularly and consider to be safe, it is not surprising that public confidence is shaken. Communities are left wondering whether the towns and cities they know and love really are the places that they see in front of them. Public safety is not just about law enforcement; as my constituent Tirath puts it, it is also about preserving the character of the places we call home. Constituents up and down the country, in towns and cities from Stoke-on-Trent to Somerset, share the same feelings. We are here today because we want to take our constituents’ concerns seriously. We are here because when they tell us that more needs to be done for them to feel like crime is being taken seriously and tackled, we want to listen. Most importantly, we are here because although austerity damaged our towns and cities, it did not break them. We want to crack on and make changes so that everyone can enjoy our town and city centres as the brilliant and buzzing places that we know they can be. That is why I want to talk about what comes next. We know that keeping our communities safe is not about warm words; it is about action. That means working hand in hand with the police and our partners to ensure that people feel welcome and secure spending time in our towns and cities.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate Inspector Ditta and my hon. Friend on all the work she does to help her local police, coupled with the additional investment in the police from our Government. Nobody here will want to talk down their city centre and I am not here to talk down Derby. Like our constituents, we are proud of the places we represent but, up and down the country, years of Tory austerity and mismanagement have eroded that pride. Austerity took bobbies off the beat and out of our city centres, with PCSO numbers halved and an estimated 600 police stations shutting their doors for good. It left our high streets boarded up, with shops closing at a rate of 37 a day in 2024. It also let retail crime run rampant, leaving shoplifting at its highest level since records began, with hard-working staff worried about their safety at work. A Co-op campaign to protect retail workers shows that, shockingly, there are more than 1,300 incidents of violence and abuse every day, with shop workers threatened just for doing their job. The catastrophic austerity experiment left our communities feeling less safe than ever. Research by the University of Southampton demonstrates that austerity led to a 3.7% increase in total crime and 4.8% increase in violent crime, with those increases hitting deprived neighbourhoods the hardest. In Derby, we have seen that play out in the streets and places we love. Pride for one’s city is stretched when the high street is littered with empty or plain dodgy shops. In 2024, Derbyshire Live estimated that more than 80 shops in the city centre were for sale or to let. That is an increase of about 60% on the previous two years. Any sense of safety was shaken when last summer residents watched masked thieves smash their way into a pawnbroker’s shop on St Peter’s Street in broad daylight.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. There is no time when the police presence should not be there. It should be there during the day, in the evening and during night-time hours. Last year, I was absolutely chuffed to see the Chancellor back Team Derby, which will bring everyone with a stake in our city’s future together to ensure that every pound of investment coming into Derby delivers the real change our community can see. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to keeping our streets safe for everyone to enjoy. Whether it is freeing up local offices to deliver neighbourhood policing in their communities; making sure that, when residents report concerns to 999, they can be confident about the response they will get; or putting bobbies back on the beat, it is vital that we crack on with the job—today, tomorrow and every single day. Wherever we call home, it is a basic expectation that we can step out of our front door, pop to local shops and feel safe. I urge the Minister to back reform with the investment and resources our local police forces need so that, in Derby and across the country, our communities have the confidence to enjoy everything that their towns and cities have to offer them.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting Ali Davies-Marsh, the fantastic founder of Greener Littleover in Derby, which does outstanding work bringing people closer to nature, through initiatives such as the Great Big Green Week, and by doing outreach in our local schools. Does the Leader of the House agree that volunteer-led initiatives like Greener Littleover should be recognised, because they represent the best of our communities in Derby and across the country?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I think this is an opportune moment to ask a question, as a Derby MP with Alstom in my constituency— the only place in the UK now where a train can be designed, engineered, manufactured and tested. Under the previous Government, Alstom had to make thousands of redundancies because there was just no certainty about work and there were delays on various projects. Can the hon. Member explain why the previous Government did not take any steps to come up with a rolling stock strategy?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Children in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help reduce inequalities experienced by children in poverty.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Children in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  In Arboretum in my constituency, half the children are growing up in poverty. That means hungry mornings, cold homes and kids who are four times more likely to face mental health problems by the time they are 11. What urgent action are the Government taking, across Government, to tackle child poverty and eliminate health inequalities so that all children can grow up in warmth and stability?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Alec. The Minister is quite eloquently setting out why some of these amendments are not needed. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, set out earlier why they were needed, but also referred to problems that may happen in the future. It is difficult to write a Bill while trying to tackle problems that may or may not happen in the future. The fact remains that rail reform failed to happen during 14 years of Conservative Government. The previous Rail Minister admitted that the Government failed to bring in the necessary reform. We had 10 Rail Ministers, I think—correct me if I am wrong—in 14 years. That was not just a failure to bring in a Bill; it failed passengers, railways and our workers who support the railways. Is it not time that we crack on, pass the Bill and deliver the improvements that this industry so greatly needs?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Whether it is at Kia, Alstom or others, apprentices in Derby are thriving at our large manufacturing companies, but we also want our small and medium-sized businesses to take on more apprentices. Will the Government set out what is being done to help smaller businesses to take on more apprentices?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will recall a visit to Derby where he officially opened Vaillant’s heat source cylinder facility. Will he outline what today’s announcement will mean for such facilities and how it will create more clean energy jobs in Derby and across the UK?

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

  More

  Q I suppose the crux of this is: do you guys, with your organisations and trade bodies, believe that the creation of GBR will make things better going forward? I am thinking of things like giving stability to what UK rail looks like; being able to invest in infrastructure and rolling stock; collaboration between industry and organisations such as GBRX for innovation and bringing in best practice; and having an investment pipeline to give certainty to what you guys are trying to do to drive your businesses forward—all while making sure UK Rail plc, call it what you like, is in a better position than it is now. Malcolm Brown: To cut to the chase, yes. Our hope has to be that with GBR—we have talked in this room about the missing building blocks, but our hope is that they all align—we will end up in a better place than we have been, certainly for the past six or seven years. You referenced GBRX. It is a limb of GBR that does all the very high-tech and signalling aspects. That seems to be working very well. We work closely with it, and we are investing in new technology—for example, on the east coast main line. We have been installing that on trains. It is very much future forward—we are looking into the future. We know that that will not be an immediate change, but we can see in the future that this is—to go back to this point—the direction of travel. It is not a no-regrets bid, but it is something that we have a degree of confidence in. Rob Morris: To add to that, yes, again the funding ambition and the need that it generates is the fuel for innovation. The one thing I would say, though, is that I am a little concerned about the Bill’s requirement for GBR to do R&D. R&D is a good thing, and we would expect it, but the thing that GBR should not do, perhaps, is to crowd out the R&D that suppliers like ourselves and many others do, both locally here in the UK and globally, because we will potentially end up reinventing the wheel. While we as global suppliers, and our competitors, have wheels to put out all around the world—the wheels are an analogy, of course—they all have functional spokes, and what we do not want to do is to reinvent the shape of that wheel for the UK. That would be abortive, it would cost, it would take time and it would be the taxpayer who pays for it. The provision in the Bill should be about harmonising with the supply chain on what is done within R&D for the benefit of the passenger, the taxpayer and the freight user. Darren Caplan: We are very concerned. We think that GBR is heading in the right direction, but Members might not be aware of how difficult it is in the supply chain supply sector at the moment. Through Savanta, we conducted a poll at the end of last year, between October and December, of rail business leaders: 64% of them said that the market is going to contract this year, which is up from 48% last year, and last year had been our record low; 62% are freezing or reducing headcount at the moment, with 34% actively laying off staff; and 85% expect a hiatus this year, which is partly because of the time it has taken for GBR to be set up, which is often cited as a reason why there is lack of confidence in the market at the moment. That is in contrast to the international situation: UNIFE, the European trade association, does a global market study, which shows that around the world, rail has grown between 3% and 6% every year. I know lots of products are out there and things feel positive, but actually our members in the supply sector are feeling that they are in a very difficult place at the moment. We need certainty, and any measures that can help with that. We have already mentioned schedule 2, which does not help at all—it has to be changed, because it makes things less certain—but clause 72 also has potential to deter private investment. That is the regulation to make changes to non-GBR infrastructure facilities and services. It gives the Government the powers to make future changes to legislation by regulation outside a parliamentary vote—so-called Henry VIII powers. That weakens the power of MPs. It will mean that the Government can rewrite the rules about non-GBR networks and how those integrate with the GBR network, including setting conditions of access and charges. That is for any network, station or track not operated by GBR, which could be High Speed 1, freight terminals, depots—we heard from freight earlier—ports and airports, telecoms and energy assets. They all integrate with the GBR network, and there is a lack of certainty about how they will integrate in the future, which will deter private and third-party investment. One global logistics company would strongly like to see such sites excluded because of the effect that it will have on investing in those assets. If you get rid of schedule 2 and amend clause 72, you can help to create a better situation when it comes to investment. I have a prop here, which is a chart showing the current investment for renewals in the UK over the past 30 years—you can see that it goes up and down. The situation that we are talking about with GBR makes it less certain. I have another chart here that shows electrification—

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

  More

  Q Are you saying that we do not need any changes in this area? Steve Montgomery: We can modify it, but we need that comfort that it will be evaluated fairly and not have the constraints of GBR putting everything in front of it, saying, “We might use those paths in the future again”. We cannot have that; we need certainty. As I said earlier, we need the opportunity to allow investment in the railway. If private sector investment is coming in while there are paths sitting there not being used, that means that we are not funding the industry up to the capacity that it may have. John Thomas: There are no protections in the Bill for open access operators. As Keir said, freight is mentioned at least 100 times and there is a freight growth target that GBR must have regard to, but there is nothing on open access. There is an inherent conflict when you have a body that will be granting access to its competitors. We would rather see the Office of Rail and Road still making those decisions. We accept that that is unlikely, because that is not the direction of travel from the Government, so as a minimum we think that a fair and non-discriminatory provision in relation to GBR decisions will help. We think, as I said earlier, that the provision for ORR to have regard to the benefits of competition in hearing appeals will help. It will not be as sufficient as today. This is not part of the Bill, but we think that the access and use policy ought to carry on with the not primarily abstractive tests. It is not just because of lack of capacity that decisions have been rejected in the past; as Steve said, it is the revenue abstraction test as well. There is nothing to stop GBR increasing test in terms of the level of abstraction that is allowed before not granting access to open access operators. There is a lot to be worked through in the access and use policy to protect open access operators but, as I say, there is nothing whatsoever in the Bill to protect them at the moment. Maggie Simpson: We recognise that the current system is not perfect, but my members want to understand two things: first, if they are running a train today that their supply chain relies on, that they can reasonably expect to be running that train in the future. Today, the ORR would have a presumption of continuity—forgive me, this is not in the Bill—so if we came to the end of an access contract they would let the trains go into the next one. The infrastructure capacity plan process is different: it throws everything up in the air. People are really worried that they will commit and invest against a service that their supply chain relies on, and then in future something else will be judged to be better value and they will be taken off the network. Secondly, when people are looking at investments, whether that is a new port or a new terminal—a new interchange might be a £1 billion investment—they need to have a sense that the capacity for the trains coming out of that interchange will be there when they need to use it. The current system has more capacity for that. That is why clause 63 worries people, because they think that that capacity could be taken away from those trains. John Thomas: Clause 71 is also a real concern for us, because it allows the Secretary of State to establish regulations to amend or even abolish access rights or access contracts. That seems quite a draconian power to us. We have been assured that that is not the intention, and that the intention is to use that power to amend contracts so that they are operable in the new structure. Our view is that the clause should be limited to enable contracts to be operable in the new structure, and not to give the Secretary of State unilateral powers to amend or abolish access contracts or access rights. Again, that will make private sector operators really nervous about future investment. I agree with Maggie: I get no impression that the current Administration would ever use that clause—but, if you are never going to use it, why have it in there?

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

  More

  Q In the existing framework, open access applications are routinely refused due to lack of capacity, or perceived lack of capacity. That pitches passengers against freight all the time. What is good about that system that you would want to keep? What would you like to see change? Steve Montgomery: The system at the moment is independent. The regulator evaluates, takes all the different evidence from the applicant and from Network Rail on how much capacity is there. It takes all that evidence and does an abstraction test to make sure that an open access application is not abstracting revenue from the existing operators. That independence is there, and it allows the regulator to evaluate that and make its decision. In the last year, it has granted some applications and refused others. The system works—maybe not to everyone’s satisfaction, but it does work and it is independent. Under GBR, it will be a huge public sector body with no real regulation. Looking at it at the moment, it is difficult to see where that independent regulation is, looking at the industry and holding GBR to account. Capacity is one of the areas we need to look at, and likewise access charges, where that comes into play.

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

  More

  Q I have to ask this question. Several years ago, the decision was made to create GBR and have it headquartered in the brilliant city of Derby, and successive Governments, Secretaries of State and rail Ministers have backed that decision. Recently, Mr Westlake, when I asked about the size and shape of the headquarters on the Transport Committee, you said that we are six to nine months away from getting to that point. Given that we are about to begin line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, can anything be done to ensure that we hold to that six-to-nine-month milestone, or improve it? Jeremy Westlake: First of all, we are very much looking forward to being headquartered in Derby. I have lived in Derby for 17 years and I think it is a wonderful place to have a centre for the rail industry; let me start with that. The work we are doing now is to define the internal organisation structure for Great British Railways, including its operating structures, divisions, integrated business units and network functions. That work needs to conclude before we can come back to you more clearly on the size of the HQ in Derby.

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

  More

  As per the register of interests, I am a member of Unite the union and vice-chair of the APPG on rail.

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

  More

  Q In your view, is anything missing from the Bill that you would have liked to have seen in it to enable that to happen? Alex Hynes: Not from my perspective. Obviously, the sooner it gets Royal Assent, the sooner we can start creating Great British Railways and delivering the benefits of having a directing mind for the railway.

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

  More

  Q If those targets are in the business plan, they cannot just be ignored, can they? Alex Robertson: Absolutely not. The ORR will have a role to play in highlighting progress against that. We would have a role in being consulted—we have to be consulted in the development of the business plan—and our duty to reflect the interests of disabled passengers would be at the forefront of our mind as that happens. Obviously, GBR will be accountable to the Secretary of State for how well that plan is delivered in practice. I have said before that a very important change that we will need to see through the creation of GBR is how GBR is held to account in public. Those targets will be public, and it will have to account for how well it is delivering against them. Michael Roberts: I have a lot of sympathy with where Emma is coming from. When one thinks about the experiences of disabled travellers, which are regularly reported in the media, you can understand why there is a wish to have as much certainty and traction over whatever commitments are made. Having said that, I think that the arrangement that you have indicated could be made to work. I am mindful that in London, the mayor has a transport strategy. In that, he has set out targets that TfL are delivering against for improvements to the number of step-free tube stations. For example, the strategy includes a target to reduce the difference between the time a journey takes for somebody with reduced mobility and the time it takes for somebody who does not have those impairments. It comes down to making sure that there are the resources to back up the targetry in the plans, that there is an energetic passenger watchdog ensuring that GBR and the industry more generally are doing what they are expected to under the plans, and that the ORR is ready to enforce if and when necessary.

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

  More

  Q My first question is, do you think that the functions and duties of Great British Railways, as set out in the Bill, enable it to be an effective system operator? Also, do you think that this will result in rail travel being more affordable for passengers? Jeremy Westlake: On the first one, about being an effective system operator, in principle, yes. What the Bill intends GBR to have to do will also require it to grow its capabilities in these areas, particularly in how it does capacity allocation. So the Bill has the intent, but GBR will need to develop key capabilities to fulfil it. Alex Hynes: It is probably worth saying that one of the benefits of the system envisaged by the Bill is that Great British Railways, the ORR and Ministers will work to a set of aligned duties. The creation of alignment across all industry parties is an important part of the Bill, and those duties are essentially the criteria that we will use to make decisions in the future. One of those key duties is to promote the interests of passengers, including disabled passengers, and of course the interests of passengers include affordability—the price paid by passengers. I therefore think that we will see a more coherent decision-making process for the railway. The key policy intent here is the creation of a directing mind—under public ownership—for the railway, and the Bill sets out how we will do that.

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

  More

  Q Do you agree that the accessibility duty, if combined with detailed targets in the business plan, will improve the whole system for disabled passengers? Emma Vogelmann: From our perspective, having accessibility targets and so on that are not built into statutory instruments is not a guarantee of change in accessibility. We have seen accessibility requirements or targets being spread across all transport sectors, and particularly in rail, but the amount of change and enforceability is very low. As much as possible needs to sit in the primary legislation. Alex Robertson: It is a difficult balancing act as to how much you put in legislation and how much comes later. It is absolutely critical that the GBR business plan properly sets targets for accessibility. One of the things that we touched on earlier is that the licence will give us the power to set the standards in relation to accessibility. We will do that in the way that I talked about, by co-creating them with disabled passengers. We will do it in a way that makes sure they are right. There is a whole series of things that will need to happen. Ultimately, it is for you all to decide the extent to which you need to see that up front, as opposed to recognising that the direction, intent and duties are clear in legislation, and that the organisations that will be responsible for delivering it are in a position to do that.

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

  More

  Q Mr Williams, how does the Bill reflect the vision of your review that we have a more integrated and passenger-focused railway? Keith Williams: I think it absolutely does. That was at the heart of the review. Customers’ main complaints were about punctuality and cancellation. Bringing track and train together ought to solve that issue.