Peter Dowd
MP for Bootle · Labour · United Kingdom
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce urgent reforms, known as “Tim’s Law”, to strengthen the response to drink, drug and dangerous driving, including the immediate suspension of driving licences for those suspected of serious driving offences, the introduction of rapid evidential roa…”
“The petition states: The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that current laws and procedures relating to drink driving, drug driving, and dangerous driving are failing to protect the public, as delays between arrest and prosecution allow suspected high-risk drivers, including repeat offenders, to remain on the roads, co…”
“The NHS will carry out screening and evaluation of newborn babies for spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, which causes spinal cord deterioration. It is a devastating genetic condition. The evaluation will start in October in England, but not in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. Does my hon.”
“Improving its rail links and connectivity is important, and it has an impact on regional growth. Grid capacity and decarbonisation have to be developed in the context of an appropriate planning framework. Liverpool port deals with bulk timber, bulk liquids, bulk cargo and general cargo and with 720,000 passengers a year.”
“It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on bringing this debate to this Chamber. I will talk about the port of Liverpool, which is actually mostly in my constituency of Bootle, and set out its importance.”
“I am really pleased that the Railways Bill has a target of 75% rail freight growth by 2050. That will enable us to unlock other markets, and of course it will provide public and private investment in connectivity; it is important that the two work closely together. Local communities have to be part of the development of the programme.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Peter Dowd, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“Q14. I pay tribute to the veterans of the Royal Naval Association Crosby branch who are in the Gallery today. Gabe Santer, a 15-year-old, fell to his death from a multi-storey car park in Liverpool in 2020, one of the many to die in such tragic circumstances, including in my constituency. My Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill seeks to prevent such deaths. Will the Government look carefully at its contents as part of a national suicide prevention strategy?”
“I remind Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. I understand that there will be interventions, but I exhort Members to keep them very tight. The Minister has kindly and charitably said that he will take 10 minutes, which gives us until 11.20 am for other Members, who should bear that in mind with good faith. As is the convention, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
“He focuses on the personal nature of marriage: the relationships, the tensions, the feelings, as Beatrice and Benedick realise when they acknowledge, reluctantly, that they are to become partners in marriage. So, let us leave the last words to Shakespeare: “Marriage is a matter of more worth Than to be dealt in by attorneyship.” This debate should not be much ado about nothing.”
“It elucidates that the debate must, in part, be about the nature of marriage, the commitment of marriage, and marriage in good faith. It must also be about the wishes of the people concerned to marry as they see fit, without duress and with, of course, appropriate safeguarding mechanisms. It is also about giving those who choose to do so the capacity to marry as they see fit, and for the process to be recognised as other marriages and ceremonies are. Shakespeare uses marriage as one of the most prominent themes, if not the most prominent, in his repertoire. Does he talk about the service? No. Does he talk about the legalistic nature of it? No.”
“Perhaps taking a different perspective might add a different angle to the debate—on the nature of marriage, so to speak. Indeed, who is impartial to a quote here or there from literature in one form or another? I began to think laterally, which I have to admit is a big challenge for me in most circumstances. I looked to my constituency for inspiration—it is a fantastic place to do so. A number of streets that date back to the 19th century that are named after characters in Shakespearean plays. On the surface, they are just street names. But lo and behold, they are named after characters who were married and who faced terrible challenges in getting married. What has that got to do with what we are talking about today? That is a fair question.”
“I am not quite sure why we should have to reiterate this request time after time after time. But we are where we are, so I decided to participate in the debate with my tuppence-worth. I wondered what my approach should be. As you know, Dame Siobhain, we think very carefully about these matters. As I said—facts, figures, statistics? I decided not to do that. Rhetoric has its place in debate. Who has not used rhetoric in their day? What about a little bit of polemic? Should I throw a little bit of polemic in? I decided not to. What about an historical examination of the nature of marriage going back thousands of years, because marriage predates, for example, any current religious timeline in relation to the concept? I decided not to do that, either.”
“First of all, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Dame Siobhain. Secondly, it is also a pleasure to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) set out in this debate the reasons for humanist marriages and why they should be recognised. On the question of humanist marriages being recognised, I ask myself why they are not. What is the problem? My hon. Friend made what I think amounts to an unimpeachable case as to why marriages of this nature should be facilitated, as other types and classifications of marriage are, and I thank Humanists UK for the briefing that it sent. I thought, “Shall I throw in some facts and figures?” No, I think other people are much better at that than I would be. It still comes back to the question of why we are debating this issue so many years on.”
“I will call Sir Christopher Chope to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.”
“Thank you very much. That gives me the opportunity to say how much time people will have to speak, because I want to bring in the Opposition spokesperson and the Minister from 10.30 am. Back Benchers will have five minutes, but that may come down, depending on the level of interventions. I call Jim Shannon.”
“I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. If you do not have that permission, do not try to speak. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. I also remind Members that the debate is only half an hour; if the Member in charge does take interventions, bear in mind that the Minister also has to respond.”
“I have seen more Tory MPs changing a lightbulb than there are in the Chamber today. I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State—as does Thomas Gray primary school, a very good school in my constituency; the parents and children do a fantastic job there—and I thank her for it. Does she agree that, quite simply, actions speak louder than the many words the Opposition say?”
“I will call the Member in charge to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. I exhort Members to think of what I just said a few moments ago. I call Mr Paul Kohler to move the motion.”
“Such expositions, however painful for the Members concerned, bring home the real need for this House to act on this issue, which is literally a matter of life and death. Finally, I look forward to seeing the Bill progress through the House in the coming weeks, as no doubt do many others. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence.”
“Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West for enabling the House to debate this issue and for the opportunity to tease out many of the issues affecting our constituents and, as I referred to earlier, to discuss crucial lifesaving and life-enhancing treatments for diseases more generally. I again pay tribute to all those colleagues who have brought their stories and their experiences to us today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley and for Mitcham and Morden, the hon. Members for Wokingham and for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and others. They deserve our admiration and thanks, but more importantly, they need our support to get the job done. That point has been made by so many.”
“Specifically, the project examines the extent to which orphanisation occurring in the EU, UK, and USA”, and seeks to understand how it is informed by “different technologies, institutions, and actors, addressing the implications for industry, health policy and patients”. I look forward to the progress that it will make. I believe that the proposals in the Bill will help. They follow through systemically and consistently to change that scenario for the better. International explorations and comparisons are one method to inform decision makers about how they can be more proactive in facilitating access to medicines for those most in need of them, especially when the size and extent of the available medicinal range is limited. That is often the case with the rare cancers we are talking about, and rare diseases more generally.”
“A research programme between 2020 and 2025 at the University of Sheffield, funded by the Wellcome Trust, indicated: “Furthermore, only a third of EU authorised orphan drugs are recommended by NICE… Thus, the medical needs of UK rare disease patients are potentially underserved compared to both the USA and EU.” Indeed, the programme is called the Orphanisation project. Clearly, as the university puts it, there is a “major international debate…currently ongoing about how we might improve patients’ access to orphan drugs, raising important questions about how to value these medicines, and the ethics of resource allocation”. The project sets out a path for being creative in progressing the relatively new concept of orphanisation, “as a way of understanding contemporary changes in the biopharmaceutical sector.”
“In this case, such potential interventions cannot simply be left to market arrangements. That is why it is important to facilitate a more comprehensive approach to the development of orphan medicines, which must be set against the context of, for example, a 2022 survey of 61 orphan medicines that received EU approvals between 2018 and 2021. Of those, 36 orphan medicines were made available in England, compared with 55 in Germany, 50 in Italy, 48 in France and 31 in Spain. While those medicines do not specifically relate to cancer, that helps to contextualise the difference in numbers for orphan medicines.”
“The provision in clause 1(2) will help to form a more progressive, informed approach and its requirements will enable information, practices and protocols from other jurisdictions to be harvested. For example, Genetic Alliance UK points out that there are as many as 7,000 rare diseases—possibly more—affecting one in 17 people, with approved treatments available for only one in 20 rare diseases more generally. Although those are not significant cohorts of people per se in a particular disease category, collectively millions of people are affected in one fashion or another by a rare disease, including rare cancers—and it is no less the case for rare cancers: a disease is a disease, and those affected by it, whether it is rare or not, are entitled to equity of care and intervention.”
“I note that the Bill will require an assessment of regulatory approaches in other countries, which is also welcome. That is an excellent and much-needed step in the right direction, linked in with the other requirements in the Bill relating to research programmes and initiatives. It sends a clear and unambiguous message to those affected and those who will be affected—that could be anybody in this Chamber and, as we have heard, it is some people in this Chamber—that the Government have heard what they have said and are not only listening to that message and that plea, but are taking practical action to put it into effect, which is more than welcome. Other countries have introduced similar legislation in this respect.”
“The pharmaceutical industry is reluctant to develop the drugs because of the cost, time and effort when they will not be commercially productive, given the number of people who will use them. The fact that these potentially lifesaving, or life-changing, drugs are not produced leaves a significant lacuna in the treatment options for those with rare cancers. Although there is a public health need—of that there is absolutely no doubt—there is no resource to enable that lacuna to be filled. That resource should be made available. I am therefore pleased that clause 1 of the Bill will place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to undertake a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for potential orphan medicines.”
“The shock and trauma that comes with such news is hard to take in, as the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) said. But then to find out subsequently that the spectrum of intervention with medicines or other allied interventions is limited because of the rare nature of a particular cancer surely adds to that distress and worry. As the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said, with glioblastoma, questions inevitably sweep through the minds of those affected as to whether an appropriate medicinal intervention is available or even on the horizon. Orphan products are those drugs that are used to treat not only rare cancers but other rare diseases.”
“Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West to help those people who “don’t have a voice”, as Dr Afif says, by giving our unambiguous backing to what she calls “a Bill of hope.” We must ensure that that hope is turned into reality: that is the job of every Member in the Chamber. We owe it to those affected by rare cancers to champion their needs, treatment and lives. The proposed legislation would be a starting point—a first base. It will enable and facilitate the promotion of research into rare cancers and better access to clinical trials, as has been said, and initiate a review of marketing authorisations for so-called orphan products, which I will explore in more detail. It is devastating to have a cancer diagnosis. We all know family members who have been diagnosed with one form or another.”
“I live in the area of Lunt that he referred to, where there is going to be a remarkable legacy for his brother: the area has been rewilded and there will be a forest there in due course, which is absolutely fantastic. I invite him and his family to come down—I will show them around and they can see the legacy that his brother has left us. I also want to refer to comments made by the chief executive officer of the Brain Tumour Charity, Dr Michele Afif, about the context of the Bill and why it is before the House. In an online article last month, she wrote: “During my clinical career I was frequently moved by the courage and determination of my patients and their families.” It behoves all of us to support the endeavours of my hon.”
“I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). I know he has put a huge amount of effort into bringing the Bill before the House, in collaboration with many others, including patients, families, professionals and charities. I send my condolences to him, his wife and family on the death of his father-in-law, and to Tilly’s family. To lose a child is unbearable and against the natural order of things. The Bill is much needed and I welcome the opportunity to make some observations about it. Before I do so, I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) and his brother.”
“If the hon. Gentleman was so concerned about that, why did he vote for the Health and Social Care Bill, which included the setting up of NHS England, on 13 March 2012?”
“The former Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), said in guidance that “ALBs are closely aligned, but distinct from their sponsor departments” and so on. It continued that ALBs “are each responsible to Parliament for their use of public funds.” Is that not contrary to what the hon. Gentleman seems to be telling us? Who is right—him or the former Paymaster General?”
“Has the hon. Gentleman had any discussions with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), to assess how much of the Committee’s time would be taken up with going through the accounts of, potentially, 150 quangos, which would be directly responsible to Parliament?”
“Q10. Veterans in Sefton, one of the many remarkable charities in my constituency, states that“Statistics can only partly measure the price paid by…servicemen and women. Incidences of broken marriages, suicides, alcoholism, deep depression, and homelessness among veterans remain largely unquantified.”Given that, will my right hon. Friend restate Labour’s commitment to providing our veterans with the holistic support they need and deserve?”
“People said the minimum wage was going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but we all know that it did not. Paternity and maternity leave was eschewed because it was said to damage industry, but did it do so? No, it did not. Research from Barclays shows that working hours in the UK have fallen by 5% on average in the past four decades, with British workers now working 27% more hours on average than their German counterparts. Workers in France, Italy and Spain have enjoyed a 10% decline in working hours, but despite people in this country working longer hours than those in our competitor and partner nations, we are one of the least productive countries in the G7, and we have to do something about that. What about the impact on employers?”
“It is over 100 years since the introduction of a five-day week in different industries, which was down to the influence of Henry Ford, who was not the most radical of people. In the 1920s, the introduction of the two-day weekend for those working at his car factories was a pivotal moment. He argued that it would boost worker productivity and morale, and it did. The argument that a shorter week affects business resilience or productivity has been used time and again. The Factories Act 1961 contained requirements to deal with overcrowding, control temperature and introduce ventilation, all of which were opposed at the time on the basis of cost. As colleagues will know, the same argument was put forward about the Equal Pay Act 1970. It was the same when paid holidays were introduced in 1938.”
“Historically, it is a well-trodden path for some to object to measures that would advance employment rights, even if those rights are of advantage to everyone concerned, be it employers, employees or society more generally. That is especially so in the medium to long term, because legislatures do not just legislate for today; they also legislate for tomorrow. I thank the Minister—my admiration for him knows no bounds—and other Members for the work that they have put into this Bill. My primary aim in tabling new clause 25 was to try to get the debate about the four-day week out of the blocks. I accept that the notion is challenging, but that is not a reason to put off the debate; the discussion has to be had.”
“In the evidence session, the Minister asked some witnesses what the productivity implications of some of the proposals contained in the Bill would be. The answer from Professor Simon Deakin, of Cambridge University, was that “there is a strong correlation between stronger labour protection and both productivity and innovation.” He went on to say that research “shows that, on average, strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years has had pro-employment effects, for various reasons.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 137-138, Q141.] I know the shadow Minister was there when Professor Deakin said that.”
“I give my full support to the measures in the Bill. Without question, they are some of the most progressive in this area of legislation for decades. My new clause 25 seeks to set up a working time council, comprising businesses, trade unions, Government Departments and experts on the subject, to advise the Secretary of State on how the transition from a five-day week to a four-day week would affect employers and employees, and on how businesses, public bodies and other organisations should approach such a transition. Virtually every progressive change in employment legislation over the decades has been pooh-poohed by the Conservative party. Leopards do not change their spots, as we have seen in spades today.”
“What is wrong with that, and is it really too much to ask? I do not think so, and many employers and employees take the same view, so let us not make an enemy of progress. Why do we not just embrace it?”
“As I have said, the Bill seeks to put this issue on the agenda, because I believe it is inevitable—history shows it—that changes in patterns of work, working arrangements, the nature of work and other associated issues, such as artificial intelligence, will eventually lead to a four-day week over a period of time. So let us embrace the change and let us plan for the change. If we do want to get the country back to work, get the country working productively and get many millions of people without work back into work, let us do this as progressively as we possibly can. Finally, if we are lengthening the time we ask people to work by an extra year, two years or maybe three years in the future—if we ask them to have a longer working life—the least we can do is to ask them to have a shorter week.”
“I am pleased the hon. Lady asked me that question, because it is patently obvious that better working conditions lead to less absenteeism, more resilience in the workforce and better productivity. It is not a magic potion, but what is known as enlightened employment. She may like to read about that, and if she wants, I will put her in touch with a few people who can talk to her about it. In that study I mentioned, 71% reported reduced levels of burnout, 54% said it was easier to balance work with household responsibilities, 60% found they had an increased ability to combine paid work with care responsibilities, and 62% reported that it was easier to combine work with social life, and so on and so on.”
“I welcome the statement, and it will also be welcomed by the families of children attending St Monica’s Catholic primary school and King’s Lander primary academy. We look forward to the extension and expansion of my right hon. Friend’s proposals. Does she agree that they are food for thought in the most literal and practical sense of the term?”
“Order. Lots of Members wish to speak today, so we could end up with a two-minute limit on speeches. I ask Members to keep their interventions very short, otherwise the limit will go down to one and a half minutes and then down to one minute.”
“Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate—although you can sit down for the minute. As I said earlier, because of the number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak, I am imposing a two-and-a-half minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, to take effect right away. Bear that in mind with interventions, as I am sure you all appreciate.”
“I would like to give Catherine Fookes a minute or two at the end to wind up, so I hope the Minister and spokespersons will bear that in mind.”
“I would prefer to see the wise men and women on Labour’s Front Bench than Ebenezer Scrooge and Jacob Marley on the Conservative Front Bench. Does the Minister agree that the statement he has made today is in stark contrast to the legacy left by the Conservative party, which left local government in dire straits?”
“I will call Jerome Mayhew to move the motion and the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
“I know the UK rare diseases framework, and the England rare diseases action plan in my case, has been trying to help patients to get a diagnosis faster but we need to do more. There has been a push to raise awareness among professionals, but we need to do more there. We need better co-ordination of care and improved access to specialist care, treatment and drugs. We also need to focus on the needs of the various nations. Although they all face similar problems, it is important to have a focus at a national and potentially regional level. I support the hon. Gentleman, who made important points. We will no doubt come back to this issue. I know that the Minister will respond, as he always does, constructively and positively, so I look forward to hearing what he and Members from other parties have to say. I will finish by saying to the hon.”
“RAIRDA is working with others to set out key statements that it believes will form the quality standards for the future. It has set out the challenges, such as the challenge of focusing on this issue and the points that the hon. Gentleman raised that the time from symptoms to diagnosis can be from two and a half years to as much as five years, and potentially beyond. There is also a challenge with access to specialist knowledge and expertise, and the hon. Gentleman’s valid point, which I repeat, about the need for those specialist networks. There is the challenge of getting support out to the people—the professionals—dealing with our constituents in one way fashion or another.”
“The Government acknowledge that, so I am not pointing the finger at them, or at health professionals. Many people with this type of disease say that they do not get the support they need, but they do not blame individual clinicians, practitioners or healthcare workers; they blame the system in so far as it does not bring those professionals together in, for example, the clinical networks that the hon. Member for Strangford referred to. This is not a finger-pointing exercise, but it is important that where we can identify, and have identified, problems in the system, it is our responsibility to try to fix those problems. The hon. Gentleman also touched on the need for defined, measurable and identified standards to reduce inequalities in healthcare provision.”
“Some 75% of rare diseases affect children and more than 30% of children with a rare disease die before their fifth birthday. That is a sobering statistic. We have to put the issue into that context: it affects the lives of so many people, not just those who are directly affected by the particular disease, but their family members and friends. A disease can also have an impact on someone’s work-life balance and their job, as well as more broadly. There are challenges, but I thank the Rare Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease Alliance for bringing those groups together to push for this issue. It believes, as we all do, that getting together gives us more strength. I support that, and I have no doubt that the Minister supports that too. We do not want rare diseases, particularly this type of disease, to be left at the back of the queue.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this issue before us today, because it is one of those subjects that does not get the attention that it needs. It is really important to tease out some of the issues, because there is a danger that they could be forgotten if we do not. The hon. Gentleman pushes this matter time and again. The whole question of rare autoimmune rheumatic disease needs to be set in the context of the wider issue of rare diseases, which are conditions that affect less than one in 2,000 people. There are 7,000 rare diseases, affecting one in 17 people, which is 3.5 million people. They can be of a genetic or non-genetic origin and they affect adults and children.”
“They are to be congratulated.” —[ Official Report , 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 582.] That is important from the Conservative Benches. The current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said: “I congratulate the negotiators on this very significant achievement”, and it was an achievement. Even the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) said: “I start by unreservedly congratulating my right hon. Friend on what seems to be a spectacular negotiating success.” —[ Official Report , 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 584.]”
“This means that, unequivocally, the legal basis for the Windsor framework is in international law.” —[ Official Report , 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 574.] It is important to move on to the current Prime Minister, who was then the Leader of the Opposition. He said: “This agreement will allow us to move forward as a country, rather than being locked in endless disputes with our allies.” —[ Official Report , 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 577.] Who would not agree with that statement? We do not want to continue to be locked in endless battles and arguments with our allies. It is worthwhile referring to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who said at the time: “My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues have strained every sinew these last weeks and months to arrive at today’s position.”
“The Prime Minister at the time said: “Today’s agreement has three equally important objectives: first, allowing trade to flow freely within our UK internal market; secondly, protecting Northern Ireland’s place in our Union”— we all agree with and recognise that— “and thirdly, safeguarding sovereignty and closing the democratic deficit.” —[ Official Report , 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 570.] He went on to take each of those in turn in more detail. He later said: “Today’s agreement scraps 1,700 pages of EU law.” —[ Official Report , 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 571.] That has been referred to in the debate; I will return to that in due course. He went on to say: “The EU has also explicitly accepted an important principle in the political declaration. It is there in black and white that the treaty is subject to the Vienna convention.”