Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

David Smith Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

The public interest should be the test, rather than ideology, habit, or an automatic knee-jerk assumption that private ownership is always the answer and public ownership must only be temporary. The test is simple. We need to ask: “What protects the national interest, the workforce, the community, and Britain’s long-term industrial capability?” If that is public ownership, we should have the confidence to say so, and if it is a long-term British industrial partner, we should consider it at the right time. But we should not hardwire into law an assumption that the end point must always be sale back into private hands. That is exactly the thinking that has left too many British assets vulnerable in the first place.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He has just made the point that I wanted to make, which is that we surely cannot make an ideological decision that it is always right to put national assets of sovereign capacity back into the private sector when, over generations, private industry has singularly failed to make the steel industry flourish. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Lee Pitcher]

I absolutely agree. This is not about heritage or the sentimental value of steel, although those things are of course important. Steel means something to people in their hearts, but, with a business brain, this is just about doing the right thing for the industry and for our country, our people and our communities.

Steel is part of who we are. It is in the homes we need to build, the railways we need to renew, the energy infrastructure we need to deliver and the defence capability we need to protect our country, and it is in the skilled work, pride and industrial strength of communities that have already given more than enough to Britain. This debate is not only about a steelworks; it is about whether Britain is prepared to act like a serious industrial nation again. For too long, we have been too casual about losing the things that make us strong: factories, skills, supply chains, ownership and industrial capacity. We have allowed strategic British assets to pass out of British hands and then pretended that ownership does not matter. It absolutely does.

In Dunscroft, Hatfield, Rossington, Thorne and Moorends, people know what happens when a major industry is allowed to collapse. They do not need a lecture in industrial policy; they and their families have lived through it, and their towns still live with the consequences. The loss of coalmining was not just an economic event but a social rupture. It damaged local economies because it damaged confidence. It damaged pride and the sense that the country valued the people and the places that powered it. That damage is still visible 40 years later.

When people say that the Government intervention is too bold, too risky or too ambitious, I say that they need to look at the cost of not acting. Doing nothing is not free. It has costs for jobs, skills, supply chain resilience, industrial communities and national capabilities. It leaves Britain less able to build, less able to defend itself and less able to stand on its own two feet. That is not prudence; that is managed decline, and I did not come into this place and into politics to manage decline.

This Bill says that when a foundational industry is at risk, when thousands of skilled jobs are at stake, and when national resilience is on the line, the Government do not have to stand aside and hope the market sorts it out. The market has not sorted this out. Decades of decline, under-investment and foreign ownership have brought us to this point. The choice before us is not between some perfect private sector solution and public ownership. The real choice is between responsible public action now or allowing a vital national capability to disappear. We cannot allow that.

Some of the amendments before us seem to start from the idea that Government intervention is dangerous. I disagree: the danger is delay and timidity. The danger is pretending that rigid caps, lengthy processes and automatic routes back to private sale are the same thing as responsibility. Managed risk is not recklessness; managed risk is leadership. If we keep doing the same safe things, we will keep getting the same results. Those results are the decline that people keep voting for us to change—the change that I come to this House to be part of.

This is a time to be bold and to step up. This is a time to take well-managed risks in the public interest. There are times to seize the bloody obvious and deliver for the country, and this is one of them. For the workers at Scunthorpe, for the families across my constituency who depend on those jobs, for the industrial communities that know exactly what happens when the Government walk away, and for the future strength of this country, I support this Bill. Britain needs steel, Britain needs British assets in British hands, and Britain needs a Government with the confidence to act in the national interest.

This Bill is a welcome step in the right direction. It turns the tide on 40 years of ideological self-sabotage. That is why amendments that would delay, dilute, cap arbitrarily or force a route back to failed models should be resisted. This Bill deserves the support of the Committee today.

Sale of Fireworks

David Smith Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member from Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this important debate. I stand here today to speak in support of the two petitions, both of which have attracted significant backing in my own constituency. More than 200 constituents signed the petition calling for a reduction in the maximum noise level of fireworks and more than 230 signed the petition seeking to limit their sale to local authority-approved events. Those numbers and the popularity of this debate reflect a genuine and deeply felt concern about the troubling effects that fireworks can have in our communities.

I have also had more than 100 emails since I was elected in July 2024. Paula, one of my constituents, wrote to me:

“They are constant, nearly every night…getting louder and are being let off at all hours. They are not only antisocial; they are harming my dog.”

Such stories are repeated across our nation.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I am very clear that I am owned by a chocolate labrador. Coco is 12 now and the problem seems to be getting worse every year. That is why the reduction in decibels would be the most effective way of dealing with the problem. People could let fireworks off when they wanted and where they wanted, as long as the sound was reduced. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I completely agree that the biggest harm for pets, animals, children and veterans comes from the loud noises—and they are going off at all times of the day. I do not know how it is across the country, but I have people in my constituency setting off fireworks during daylight hours. What is the point of that? What should be a joyous moment of celebration has now become a source of fear, distress and disruption. The harm caused by fireworks is well evidenced and widely documented. Sudden, unpredictable explosions cause severe distress to animals, triggering panic responses and long-term behavioural trauma.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

David Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Forty years ago in this place, the Conservative Minister of Trade and Industry said:

“I believe that…privatisation will enable”—

British Steel—

“and its work force to…secure a firmly based competitive industry with a long-term future”.

In the same debate, the then Labour shadow Minister asked whether the Minister has

“not rewarded British Steel…with a plan which quite unnecessarily places its future in jeopardy?”—[Official Report, 3 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 1107.]

Today, I think we can conclude that that privatisation did indeed place British Steel in jeopardy and that privatisation has left Britain’s steel industry dangerously exposed.

In the post-war period, railways, steel, mines and mills covered the country in a thicket of industry, but for ideological reasons the Conservatives tore those networks apart, with the result that in my North Northumberland constituency, the electricity grid is owned by Warren Buffett, the water system is overseen from Hong Kong, and the buses are ultimately run out of Miami. We have the chance to correct this with British steelmaking, and that is what we are trying to do today. This matters because national security is about much more than defence; it is about trust, mutuality and our common endeavour.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that home-made steel is the fire in the belly of this country’s industrial strategy, and that without steel being made on our shores to the highest quality, we are weaker? Today’s Bill—a Labour Bill—will guarantee the future of steelmaking in our country, which is essential.

[David Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I agree absolutely. I want my constituents to trust that the people pumping their water, providing their power, connecting them to the wider world and making their steel have their interests at heart. I want them to get jobs in businesses that serve the common good, not international stock markets or foreign Governments. We need to have strategic industries in-house, so that we can trust that our economy is working for us.

As we have heard today, Jingye appears to have at heart not the interests of the British people, but its own profit. Why should we accept that a decision made in a boardroom in China with links to the Chinese communist party can risk wiping out an industry that is the heart of one of our communities, and vital to our nation’s flourishing? If we were ultimately to nationalise steel, that would not necessarily be a perfect solution. A sluggish and over-subsidised steel producer would not serve Britain’s interests any more than one owned by foreign firms, but I believe we should keep nationalisation on the table. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) said, we have the expertise and certainly the passion here in this country to succeed, and recent events have proved that the safest way to safeguard strategic parts of our national infrastructure is to do it ourselves.

Privatisation has often been very bad for our country. That it takes Government intervention to secure the continuation of our last remaining plant producing virgin steel speaks volumes. My hope is that we soon move to the full nationalisation of British Steel and align that with our planned massive investment in skills through Skills England. After decades of fire sales of British industry, it is time for us to rebuild our industrial pride, our national security and our social covenant. To those ends, I urge the House to back Britain and back British Steel.

[Several hon. Members rose—]