Rebecca Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Safe Reopening of Mount Batten Beach and Peninsula · Hansard source

  More

  Along with almost 1,700 signatures from a similar online petition, I present this petition of residents from across Plymouth, Plymstock and the rest of my South West Devon constituency about the ongoing closure of Mount Batten beach and peninsula. This important city beach, accessible by public transport and used by thousands, has been closed since 10 July 2026, when significantly high levels of asbestos fibres were discovered in the sand. Fencing has been erected around the entire area. Since then, over 140 local residents have attended a meeting to raise their concerns about what this closure means for the local community, including businesses located at the beach, and campaigners have continued speaking out about the need to find a way to reopen the beach. The petition calls on Plymouth City council and the Government to do all they can to ensure that measures be taken to see the beach safely reopened and safeguarded for future generations. The fight continues. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of South West Devon and the surrounding area, Declares that the continued closure of Mount Batten Beach peninsula is having a significant impact on local residents, sea swimmers, watersports users, businesses and the wider community; further declares that residents want to see the site reopened safely as soon as possible; further notes that specialist expertise is required to identify the source of the asbestos contamination and determine the steps needed to enable the safe reopening of the site. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government and Plymouth City Council to do whatever it takes to secure the necessary specialist expertise as soon as possible, provide the community with clear answers on the next steps, and work at pace towards the safe reopening of Mount Batten Beach and peninsula. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003237]

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that good point, which I am particularly passionate about. I have spoken a lot this week about funding for rural services, particularly under local government reorganisation, and that will be really important in the future structure of unitary councils. How can we ensure that villages and smaller towns get access to family hubs and things like them—and whatever else comes about following the Bill—and that people are not reliant on infrequent public services or on having a car to get to them? I am glad he mentioned that, because it gives me even more reason to continue on my journey against local government reorganisation in my constituency. My hon. Friend also highlights how we want every community to have a family hub. I am considered to be the MP for the slightly well-off bit of Plymouth, so I am incredibly grateful that the city set one up in my constituency, but there are whole communities in my constituency, such as Plymstock where I was a councillor for many years, that do not have a wellbeing hub or a family hub. If we are to do this, we must ensure that we do it properly. I want to take the opportunity to remind the House that family hubs are a Conservative innovation, grounded in the principle that strong families make for a strong society. I am delighted that the Labour Government have committed to build on our success and roll out family hubs to all local authorities, not just those initial 75. I must also say that they are not merely Sure Start rebranded.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. Of course, if we are going to do this properly, we have to make sure that the funding is there, which I think is the entire point of the Bill. I agree with that, but the great thing about family hubs is that they set out an intention right from the start that it is not okay to just ringfence the money until the age of five; we need to ensure that we provide support all the way through. There is a lot more work to be done on both sides of the House to develop what that looks like. I think we are in pretty good agreement on this, whether it is support up to five or beyond. At the end of the day, we want families and young people to have the best start, as the name suggests. It is worth pointing out that family hubs are required to provide support for children up to the age of 19, or 25 for those with special educational needs and disabilities. There is clearly a lot more thinking to be done. I appreciate that the Bill will specifically ringfence provision for under-fives, but ultimately we do not want there to be a cliff edge—we do not want all this support to suddenly drop off when children get to five because that would not maintain and make the most of the family hub model as it was established. When I visited the Rees centre family and wellbeing hub in Plympton in my constituency, I was very impressed with what is going on there. It is a brilliant community asset that has been there since the ’60s. There is breastfeeding support, but what is also amazing is that it has a time bank, so there are all these mums bringing in their babies to see the health visitor or to be weighed—all the things that a family hub does for under-fives—but there are also older people from the community coming to meet, socialise and do things together. When a family hub or a Best Start centre is truly embedded in a community, it has the opportunity to be a place where all sorts of things are delivered, and that combined delivery makes them even better. We do not want them to become centres where only people with children and those who have families go; we should open them up, to do as much as possible within the community, because that is at the heart of what they can do. It is really important that we look at the whole picture, as well as focusing on the first 1,001 days, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to deliver family hubs right up to the age of 19. As we discuss earlier support, there is a little elephant in the room. Evidence consistently shows that children under the age of two need to be nurtured by their parents primarily, and I think we are all saying the same thing today, but it is my personal view that parental presence requires childcare choice. More than two thirds of working mothers with pre-school children say that they would work fewer hours if they could afford it, according to the Department for Education, but too often parents feel pushed towards a one-size-fits-all model of formal childcare. We need to explore where we can offer parents more options in the earliest years and free them up to do what they feel is best for them and their family. It is not about telling parents what to do; it is about trusting them to make the right decisions for their family. We must never forget who matters the most to the baby: it is their parents. We should do everything we can to help mums, dads and carers be present as much as possible. This Bill must be the start of a wholesale reframing of family support. Every stage of childhood matters, and we must back families every step of the way. That is why I am very keen to support the Bill today.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I join many others today in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on securing this debate and on his choice of topic. There does seem to be an enormous amount of agreement in the Chamber today, and I know that he has secured cross-party support for the Bill, which is excellent. Like everyone else present, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. While I, like many others, do not have my own children, I am an aunt to four, a godmother to four and a friend to many people who have children. I have been looking after my friends’ kids since I was about 18, so I am pretty adept at changing nappies; I know how to get them to smile and how to do all those things. We have heard mention of the value of the wider family and friendship group, and I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the Bill from that perspective. As a result, I know that there is a reason why we say, “The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world”—it is because those earliest years really do matter profoundly. During the first 1,001-day period, secure attachment is built through a baby’s everyday interactions with their parents, their carer or, indeed, their aunties and uncles. A smile, a cuddle, a comforting voice—those simple moments lay the foundations for emotional wellbeing. I certainly hope that the 24 hours in which I was the only person to provide my 18-month-old nephew with all those things added to his wellbeing, rather than detracting from it—we will see in a few years’ time. I think he generally knows who I am and is happy to see me, so that is fine. By the age of two, a child’s brain reaches around 80% of its adult size. As Lord Cameron has said, “mums and dads literally build babies’ brains.” By supporting parents from the very beginning, we can improve outcomes for children and reduce the need for costly state intervention later down the line. That is why I support the Bill’s intention to put services during pregnancy and early childhood on a stronger statutory footing. The reporting requirements in the Bill will mean that decisions on funding cannot be made in the dark, ensuring that services such as Best Start family hubs and the healthy babies programme remain a Government priority. Family hubs provide a vital one-stop shop for parents, bringing together practical support under one roof, from breastfeeding advice to work to help to reduce parental conflict. Plymouth was one of the original 75 local authorities selected to participate in the Conservative Government’s family hubs programme back in 2022. The council has now successfully established a network of 11 hubs. However, interestingly, there have been recent reports about funding changes, and trying to find out information on what is happening, who is responsible and what is going on has been really difficult. Therefore, anything that ensures that that reporting back is done—particularly on funding and sustainability when external agencies are providing those services—will be particularly important. As an advocate for family hubs, when I have constituents come to me and say that people working in those hubs are being made redundant, I want to know what is going on and whether delivery is continuing. It is important to remind ourselves that the value of family hubs is that they are open to everyone. However, I believe that more could be done to encourage parents to use them. So far, only 16% of parents with a child under five have used a family hub, despite 66% having heard of them, according to a poll from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It is clear that we need to do more on that.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  Further to a similar online petition of more than 4,200 signatures, I present this petition on local government reorganisation in Devon. The plans published in July by the Government appear to have been configured entirely to benefit the urban areas of Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, and call into question service delivery, local democracy, and local identity across the county’s rural communities. Arguably there is no conceivable way that it can result in growth in every postcode. As a result I welcome the Prime Minister’s agreement yesterday to revisit the current plan, and my hope is that the strength of feeling shown by residents in South West Devon, south Devon, and across the county, will result in a meeting with Ministers to discuss a way forward that benefits the whole county, with local services that we can all be proud of, and that do not create a two-tier Devon of urban versus rural. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of South West Devon and the surrounding area , Declares that the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of local government in the c ounty of Devon have not adequately taken account of local viewpoints; further declares that it will lead to a democratic deficit for rural areas, introduces a rural council area that is too large to effectively administer, will lead to a disparity between total council tax bills for rural compared to urban areas as parish precepts will continue to be charged for rural areas, will result in the prioritisation of urban needs over those of rural areas, and will represent a loss of identity for long-established rural communities . The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon its plans for local government reorganisation in the county of Devon . And the petitioners remain, etc .] [P003232]

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak multiple times about his trip to Cornwall, and I hope he enjoyed Exeter services on his way through Devon. It is disappointing that he did not spend more time in rural Devon in particular, because the biggest issue I dealt with over the summer was the Government’s local government reorganisation announcement, which will see a huge rural Devon constituency of 2,200 square miles with just 103 councillors, compared with 220 councillors for three urban centres of about 600 square miles between them. I accept the Prime Minister’s ambition for growth in every postcode, but he mentioned earlier the lack of infrastructure in the south-west. How can that version of local government reorganisation produce growth in every postcode? I urge him to revisit that decision with the Minister responsible, because, quite frankly, constituents across rural Devon are devastated by what it might mean for them.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State claims that decisions reflect local identities. Well, I can advise him that the majority of my constituents and those living in rural Devon would highly disagree. Instead, we have an urban Labour stitch-up that ignores the plethora of rural voices who oppose Plymouth and Exeter’s land-grab plans and creates a rural council that would be two and a half hours from north to south and two hours wide. Is he also aware that he is creating a two-tier system? Parish precepts are likely to remain on the bills of South Hams residents, who will be paying higher council tax than the city dwellers. Does the Secretary of State agree that this bakes in inequality from day one?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Employment and Training · Hansard source

  More

  This draft order will allow the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, known as the ECITB, to continue collecting a levy on employers in order to fund training and address skills shortages. The engineering construction industry underpins many of the services that we rely on every day: heating our homes, supplying clean drinking water, or providing the energy and fuels that keep our economy moving. The levy helps to ensure that we have the skilled workforce needed to build and maintain critical infrastructure, a workforce essential to the UK’s future energy security and economic growth. The order continues the board’s established approach of setting levy orders for a three-year period. Under the proposals before us, the levy rates for employees working on site will remain at 1.2% of total enrolments and rates for off-site employees will remain at 0.33%. That is unchanged from the 2023 levy order. As we have heard, exemptions will continue to be in place for smaller employers. This draft order is particularly relevant to my constituency. Devonport dockyard, in the neighbouring Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency, and its supply chain provide thousands of highly skilled engineering and construction jobs across Plymouth and the wider south-west. Indeed, the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent has been maintained from Plymouth for over 70 years and will need a trained workforce—something that Team Plymouth is working hard to deliver. As major investment continues in defence and nuclear infrastructure, it is critical that we maintain a steady stream of skilled engineers, technicians and apprenticeships. I can confirm that we Conservatives will not oppose the order. However, this debate is a useful opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s plans to address the issues with recruitment and retention. As the Minister has already said, the training levy clearly commands industry support, with 85% of levy-paying employers voting in favour of it in 2025, representing 98% of the levy paid. The levy system plays a vital role in developing a consistent pipeline of home-grown engineering construction workers. According to research commissioned by the ECITB in 2024, 65% of employers felt that, without the levy and grant system, the training would not take place. In an increasingly fragile geopolitical climate, it is vital that we have a well-trained domestic talent pool across those sectors. The levy works because it is driven by industry need. Companies understand their workforce requirements far better than Whitehall ever could, and we should be empowering businesses to create jobs, not burdening them with ever greater costs and then attempting to compensate through Government schemes that seek to manage the consequences of labour shortages after they have arisen. One reason levy rates are not being increased is that employers are already facing higher operating costs, not least because of Labour’s damaging national insurance hikes. That is classic Labour economics: making it more expensive to hire people, then intervening with subsidies to solve a problem of the Government’s own making. As I have said before, most employers would rather keep more of what they earn and invest it themselves than have the Government take with one hand and give a little back with the other. I believe such details are included in the explanatory note. The levy proposals are expected to raise a total of £137.9 million over the levy periods between this year and 2028. We must ensure that this levy delivers the workforce that the industry needs. More than 70% of employers are now experiencing significant hiring challenges, up from 53% in 2021. According to the ECITB’s 2025 report, the main reasons for skills shortages include “a shortage of qualifications and skills among candidates, a mismatch between candidate expectations and what employers can offer, a limited applicant volume, mobility and location issues, and increased competition among employers and other sectors.” To make matters worse, the engineering construction industry faces an upcoming wave of retirements. Almost 15% of the workforce are already over the age of 60. Workers in craft roles, in particular, are in short supply. Concerningly, about one in four welders and one in five pipefitters are over 60. Although the number of workers under 30 has slightly increased since 2021, from 14.7% to 16.8%, new entrants are not yet arriving quickly enough to offset experienced workers leaving the industry. We know that the ECITB invested £28 million in training grants and new entrant programmes in 2024, supporting more than 2,000 new entrant starts, including 1,000 apprentice starts and more than 500 graduates. That is to be welcomed, but those numbers must keep growing if the industry is to replace retiring workers while simultaneously expanding the workforce needed for future projects. The industry will face peak demand for workers in four years’ time, and 40,000 extra workers will be needed for major projects by 2030, according to ECITB forecasts. That does not even take into account the demand in manufacturing sectors not covered by the ECITB. I accept that the Minister said that 5,000 places have been filled but, given that 40,000 figure, we will need further work on this. Can the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking, alongside the ECITB’s work, to attract new entrants into the workforce? Given the significant training costs that employers incur, does he believe that current ECITB grant support is sufficient to incentivise employers to expand recruitment, particularly in occupations facing the greatest shortages? We know that retention is equally critical, so could he confirm what proportion of apprentices, graduates and new entrants supported through the ECITB are still working in the industry 12 months after completing their training? The Government have recently consulted on proposals to bring together the Construction Industry Training Board and the ECITB in a single body. As those responses are considered, I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on how the specialist needs of the engineering construction sector will be protected. Constituencies such as mine rely on highly skilled engineering and technical workers to support major defence and nuclear infrastructure, but we also need construction workers to build new homes and the like, and it is important that those skills are not overlooked within a larger organisation. I want to ask the Minister another question, if I may. Since the removal of local training groups by the Construction Industry Training Board, I have heard that money for regional employer networks has not been found in certain regions, and as a result those networks have not been properly set up. We have debated that point in the past, and I appreciate that it is not entirely related, but it is about employment and training. How is the Department working to mitigate the apparent failure of the regional employer network hubs that were being set up? To conclude, the engineering construction industry requires a strong pipeline of skilled workers. There is clear evidence that employers continue to support the levy system, but I would welcome the Minister’s response to the points I have raised about recruitment, retention and the future direction of the ECITB. If we are serious about delivering our ambitions on energy, infrastructure and industrial growth, we must be equally serious about investing in the workforce that will make those ambitions a reality.