David Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. As hon. Members have said, it is a testament to the importance of the issue that we are all here this evening. The Minister can relax as on this occasion I will not talk about the A1—I will in future—but about the northern bypass in Morpeth, which has a 60 mph zone. In 2023, Labour party activists and the local parish council made a case to the county council that a safer crossing was necessary, but the issue has not moved on. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is local people, local parish councils and local town councils who understand their circumstances best, and that they should be listened to and given more power in this regard?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have nearly finished. For that matter, what will stop relatives anxious to receive their inheritance from subtly pushing the option of assisted death? To conclude, as legislators the responsibility falls on us, in this place, to create outstanding legislation that provides clarity, certainty and benefits to our constituents and to the country at large, yet all my concerns from the start of the process still remain; indeed, they have only grown. We have repeatedly heard today that there is no alternative to this Bill and that the status quo is the alternative. Well, we have agency in this place—the choice that we are making today is a big change to the status quo, so why can we not do other things? It is not simply a choice between this Bill and nothing else. Therefore, I will be voting against the Bill and encourage colleagues to do the same.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On Second Reading in late November, I wanted to express the concerns that I had with the Bill around coercion, commercialisation and the pressure on people who feel that they are a burden. Unfortunately, there was not enough time in that debate, and there is not much time today either. During that debate, the House was repeatedly reassured by some Members that the Bill was about to undergo a rigorous scrutiny process in Committee. The question on Second Reading that we were most implored to consider was whether we wanted to keep talking about the Bill. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is not in his place, said it best: “I say to both the Bill’s sponsors that it has a number of areas that they know I think they have to put right—about a dozen, in truth.” —[ Official Report , 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1053.] While the time for talking is quickly running out, this Bill remains far from ready. Too many concerns remain partially or wholly unaddressed—these things have not been put right. Let me highlight three of the issues that I was originally concerned about. First, on the issue of coercion, seven months on from Second Reading, the Bill still does not even define “dishonesty”, “coercion” or “pressure”. Let me say that clearly again—it does not define “coercion”. If we, as legislators, cannot do that, then who will? Further, with the exclusion in the Bill of assisted deaths from the coronial system, a vital opportunity has been missed to include the investigative oversight that would be most likely to spot coercion, even if it was after the fact of assisted dying. Secondly, the marketisation of assisted dying worries me greatly and I do not believe that it has been properly addressed in the Bill. We already know, from last week’s debate, that there is a loophole in the advertising ban, where future Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care could decide to launch public health information campaigns on television, online or in GP surgeries outlining the options of assisted dying. Even worse, in my view, is the certain involvement of private commercial interests in assisted dying. When we combine the known costs to the state from the impact assessment and the unknown costs, the limited resources currently available within the NHS and the conscientious objections of large swathes of doctors, which is surely inevitable, we can foresee that assisted dying will be largely privatised. Commercial operators with shareholders and a desire to maximise profit will inevitably be delivering assisted death. In such circumstances, they will find ways to grow their revenue, including through marketing it, however subtly. Thirdly, on the issue of feeling a burden, on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) raised the issue of Washington state, where 59% of those going through with an assisted death, in a similar process to the one proposed in the Bill, did so because they feared being a “Burden on family, friends/caregivers.” There has been no meaningful response to that argument, in my opinion, from those in favour of the Bill. I ask colleagues in favour of passing the Bill to consider the following scenario. An older relative knows that assisted death is now possible and that their family is struggling to get by, in difficult economic circumstances. They have a health condition, with a prognosis of five months to live, even though studies show that most such prognoses are wrong about 50% of the time. What will stop our parents or grandparents from deciding to seek assisted dying purely to “do the right thing” by their loved ones?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am just coming to my conclusion. The choice for Members is very clear—indeed, stark. It is to approve the biggest change to abortion law in 58 years while, I believe, making things worse for women and their unborn children, or to solve the problem of criminal justice overreach by reinstating in-person appointments for abortion. This is clearly a very difficult subject, and I just feel that amending this Bill is not the right way to go about such a divisive and emotive change, but I will leave it there.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree. If something is absolute—in terms of the new clauses, as I understand them—it must cover all eventualities, and what we are trying to say is that we simply do not believe that it can. I have heard it said that no woman would induce an abortion after 24 weeks, but we cannot introduce such a profound change in abortion law on the basis of a simple hope that no woman would take such a drastic step. If we remove the possibility of criminal prosecution for abortion post 24 weeks’ gestation, it is a certainty that some women will take that drastic step if there are no sanctions and no wider consequences.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to oppose new clauses 1 and 20 and to support new clause 106. All the new clauses concern the issue of abortion. Through the process of decriminalisation, new clauses 1 and 20 will introduce the possibility of de facto abortion up to birth for any reason in this country, for the first time in history. Let me be clear: this means that it will no longer be illegal for a woman to abort a full-term, healthy baby. That would be a profound change in the settled position on abortion in this country for the past 58 years—an extreme move that polling has shown that the vast majority of the country does not want. Indeed, recent polling shows that only 3% of the public support the idea of abortion up to birth. New clause 106 would diminish the risk of women being criminalised for abortions beyond the current legal limit through the reinstitution of in-person appointments. That is popular; recent polling shows that two thirds of women back a return to in-person appointments for abortions. I do not want to be standing here talking about abortion. It is not something that I came into Parliament to do. I am also very conscious that, as a man, I should be very careful about commenting on the experience of women. However, I feel that new clauses 1 and 20 give me no choice but to speak against them, despite my huge respect for the mover of new clause 1 in particular. What are we trying to achieve here? If the aim is to decriminalise women in difficult situations, I have huge sympathy for that. For eight years I was the chief executive of a homelessness charity that housed and supported women in desperate situations, many of whom were traumatised, dependent on substances, with fluctuating mental ill health conditions and extensive experience of the criminal justice system. A common theme among them was that they had been abused and harmed from a very early age, consistently into their adulthood. The women we served and supported still had agency. They still had free will. If their circumstances were desperate at times, they nevertheless often confounded those circumstances to rise above them. However, they also made decisions that they regretted. They made decisions, at times, that those around them—and even they themselves, later—were appalled by.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid I am going to make some progress. In 2024, according to Government statistics, there were a quarter of a million abortions. If only 1% of them took place as late-term abortions, that would mean 2,500 late-term abortions a year. We also risk the rise, once more, of backstreet abortions. Imagine a scenario in which a woman knows that she cannot now be prosecuted under the law for a late-term abortion, but for some reason wishes to go ahead with one, or is pressured into it. Surely at this stage she is more likely to get hold of pills by post—which are not considered safe to take outside a clinical context after 10 weeks—by pretending to be under the legal limit, to undertake a dangerous procedure on herself, or to seek to procure an off-the-books abortion.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Transport Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an important and powerful speech about the significance of local road infrastructure. She mentions the A1, which is in my constituency, and I know Moor Farm roundabout well. Does she agree that as the Government make a massive investment in local transport, we really have to think about investing in key junctions up and down the A19 and the A1 so that we can improve road safety and efficiency for everyone concerned?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way, given the time constraints. I have a simple but key question: does an advertisement include a leaflet on a GP’s surgery table or on a door going into the GP? It seems unclear to me what is information and what it advertisement.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to speak to this monumental piece of legislation, which is so necessary and so important. I cannot help but notice that many times in the debate a false dichotomy has been presented of a choice between nature and biodiversity net gain on the one hand and planning, infrastructure, housing and development on the other. As someone who comes from the most beautiful constituency and county in England— [ Interruption. ] You all know it’s true. I stress that that natural beauty is vital, but that the people of North Northumberland also want more development. Too often the debate has been about nature versus development. I note, for example, that amendment 151 assumes that development corporations will come into conflict with the need to tackle climate change. I believe that the Bill will be good for our natural world in so far as it unlocks the “little and often” developments that will help Northumbrians to revitalise their rural communities and protect natural landscapes. As the MP for a constituency with a natural landscape, including a dozen sites of special scientific interest and half a national park, I cannot help but be awed by that beauty. As amendment 151 acknowledges, our natural world faces an uncertain future, with climate change and other pressures. Organisations such as the Northumberland National Park Authority and the Northumberland Wildlife Trust do excellent work in stewarding Northumberland’s unique ecological inheritance. I encourage the Government to continue having a genuine dialogue with environmental groups as the Bill progresses and is implemented in due course. Our language and approach must honour our commitment to environmental stewardship, and we need to thread the needle of sustainable development together. Perhaps the greatest threat to the ecological treasure trove that is my constituency is more straightforward: dwindling rural communities and the challenges that the next generation face in building a future for themselves in rural Britain. North Northumberland, for example, is ageing. Only 16% of its residents are children, while 30% are over 65—10% more than the national average.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am simply trying to make the point that many of the amendments proposed seem to set up a false dichotomy between the ability to develop our country, including with housing, and to protect the natural environment. I will give one example of that. Norham parish council in my constituency is trying to open up a plot of land for a small development, because it sees the value of young families moving into the village. That development would go some way towards securing the future of the first school and the community at large. It is not helpful for the parish council to be caught up in red tape, which diminishes the possibility of that development happening. A recent local report said that nearly one in two businesses in rural Northumberland cited a shortage of affordable local housing for staff as a key barrier to business.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. There need not be this false dichotomy between what development corporations can do and the protection of our natural environment. Rural Great Britain is crying out for “little and often” development. We can get this right, and the Bill is trying to deliver that by cutting through labyrinthine planning rules so that we can have more homes and more infrastructure. If there is no one left in rural communities, the natural world will be without the stewards and protectors that it requires.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  All I can say is simply that I have been working with constituents who have been affected by the compulsory purchase orders, and I will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree about whether that project should ever have gone ahead under the previous Government. On rural development, where are the future rangers, conservationists and gamekeepers? Where is the next generation of farm hands to deliver environmental land management schemes?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Local Authority Funding: Barnett Formula · Hansard source

  More

  10. What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the impact of the Barnett formula on levels of funding for local authorities.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Local Authority Funding: Barnett Formula · Hansard source

  More

  The largest ever devolution settlement—£50 billion—is great news for Scotland and its local authorities, but under the SNP there are 840,000 cases on NHS waiting lists. This affects people in my constituency in North Northumberland, many of whom use cross-border healthcare and dental services, so does the Minister agree that the SNP needs to sort itself out and start delivering change to the NHS, as Labour is doing in England?

• 21 May 2025 · Broadband and Mobile Connectivity: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, especially on her last line. One of the key issues with rurality is that we often depend on mobile signal because of the sparsity of the areas we represent, such as my constituency of North Northumberland. We can be profoundly impacted by storms as a result, and we should be looking to build in contingencies such as generators for mobile masts. The Government should consider simple things like that.

• 21 May 2025 · Broadband and Mobile Connectivity: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 20 May 2025 · School Buildings: Northumberland and Newcastle · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech—he is clearly a passionate advocate for his schools in Northumberland. Another school in Northumberland is Berwick Academy, which was Berwick community high school until it became an academy in 2011. Over the years it has been good, but it now requires improvement. In terms of its physical condition, unfortunately the students’ toilets now have black mould, which—he was talking about the previous Government—is a terrible failing. We are still waiting on the plan to rebuild that school. In 2021 the county council had a plan to rebuild it, but we are still waiting on an outline business case. Does he agree that these are just not good enough standards for our students, for our parents and for our community as a whole in Northumberland?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that all of us in this place respect and value our medical professionals. The simple point to make is that not everyone who goes before the medical profession has the same experience or confidence as some of us in this place.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud that Britain has set ambitious targets for clean energy. We want 95% of our energy to come from low- carbon power sources by 2030. The Government are changing the planning system, as we have heard, so they can deliver the renewable energy of the future. It is important that the benefits of that ambition are felt by us all, and I am keen to ensure that my constituency of North Northumberland is not overlooked in the new energy race. That means that our solar farms should be local, farmer friendly and effective so that they serve my constituents as well as the whole country. We have heard phrases such as “large-scale prime agricultural land” a lot. We just have to think through where the solar farms are going to be. It need not be an either/or, as seems to have been suggested here at times. First, it is crucial that solar farms have local support and are rooted in communities. I know many in North Northumberland want renewable community energy that directly benefits them and their neighbourhood now. I have spoken to very small rural communities in my constituency that are well on their way in their attempts to get local solar farms. They want to sign up to the ambition of Great British Energy for the future. We want to make sure that solar panels are a part of everyday life. In 2013 the Government estimated that there were a quarter of a million hectares of south-facing commercial roofs in the UK. We should make good use of those roofs to ensure that new build homes, for example, have solar panels for the benefit of their owners and their neighbourhood. That is entirely legitimate. Secondly, solar farms must go hand in glove with farmers. In North Northumberland we have highly productive land that is outstanding for local farmers and for our national food security. It is therefore crucial that we use our scarce land for the best possible purpose. However, let us be clear to the Conservative party, which claims to be for farmers and the party of free choice and small businesses: it is for those farmers and landowners to decide whether they want to diversify. Early research by Lancaster University suggests that sheep farming, sheep grazing and solar farms—actually called “agrovoltaics”—can go hand in hand. Solar farms could represent one strand of healthy diversification for many farm businesses, and I welcome that.