Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between David Smith and Lola McEvoy

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Smith]

I will make progress.

The new clauses seek to address a perceived problem of police actions that were over-zealous in a handful of cases by making a fundamental change to abortion law that would put more women at risk while also risking the lives of infant children.

[Lola McEvoy]

My hon. Friend is giving a speech that I think many Members will find difficult to hear from such a wonderful friend and colleague. Does he agree that many women are already facing incredibly difficult situations, and many could already have a late-term abortion for which they could order pills online? We do not want to criminalise those who are not doing that. It is entirely wrong to criminalise people for taking action. Does my hon. Friend agree that the majority of women are doing the right thing?

[David Smith]

I absolutely do agree that the vast majority of women are doing the right thing, but I do not believe that we can cover all eventualities through such a fundamental black-and-white change in the law.

The real problem is that the temporary pills-by-post abortion scheme brought in during covid, which does not require in-person appointments, has been made permanent. That is why I added my name to new clause 106. In-person appointments would remove any doubt about the gestational age of a foetus within a narrow range, and massively reduce the likelihood of successful coercion, which is something I have seen throughout my work, as I have mentioned. This would consequentially remove the possibility of egregious police overreach, which I know my hon. Friends are so concerned about.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Debate between David Smith and Lola McEvoy

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.