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 6 of 12.
“Through common law, developed by the Court, “aid” or “abet” has now shifted to “assist” or “encourage” for establishing secondary liability. In many situations, this test is entirely reasonable. Most people would agree that an armed robber at a bank heist gone wrong, for example, can be deemed as culpable as their partner who actually shot a person, because they make a significant contribution to the crime by carrying or supplying a gun and threatening the cashier, for example. The problem, according to many legal experts, is that joint enterprise laws are sometimes used in a much wider way, often to convict people who have made no significant contribution to the crime at all. Campaigners have long warned that these laws can be used as a racist dragnet to maximise convictions.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. New clause 16 mirrors the Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) in attempting to amend the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861. It clarifies that a person must make a significant contribution to a crime to be guilty of it. The private Member’s Bill, which has cross-party support, will have a Second Reading debate on Friday 2 February. The 1861 Act states that those “who aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of ”— an offence— “…shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.” However, the doctrine of secondary liability or joint enterprise, as it is more commonly known, is still older.”
“Finally, will the Minister agree that it is not in the public interest to prosecute those who have not made a significant contribution to a crime?”
“That is one of the many such examples provided by Dr Gerry, who, as I said, was the lead counsel in the landmark Jogee case. Is the Minister be willing to meet Dr Gerry and other experts in this field who can explain why this change of law is so badly needed? Can the Minister explain why the Crown Prosecution Service’s own database suggests that black people, as I indicated earlier, are 16 times more likely than white people to be prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide under joint enterprise laws? What assessment have the Government made of the reasons behind that remarkable statistic? It is shocking. Is it not obvious why campaigners say that joint enterprise is too often used as a racist dragnet?”
“My hon. Friend gets right to the nub of this matter, and she is absolutely right. I agree with her point. Dr Gerry points out that the case of Fiaz, in which she was lead counsel, highlights the need for legal clarity. Judges are currently required to direct juries to consider the significance of a defendant’s contribution to an offence, and that is leading to numerous miscarriages of justice. Only Parliament can fix that. I have a number of questions for the Minister. If the new clause is unnecessary, as may be claimed, can the Minister explain why when schoolchildren spontaneously gather for a fight and one of them unfortunately dies, they are sometimes all prosecuted even when they have had no contact with the victim and no weapon?”
“(c) In any other case— (i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both; (ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.’”— (Peter Dowd.) This new clause would expand the existing offence of failing to stop after a road collision to create more serious penalties for failing to stop after collisions which result in death or serious injury. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“New Clause 17 Offence of failing to remain at the scene of a traffic collision “In section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after subsection (4) insert— ‘(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable— (a) If a person other than the driver of the vehicle suffered a fatal injury— (i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. (b) If a person other than the driver of the vehicle suffered a serious non-fatal injury— (i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both; (ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”
“The whole point of British justice is that when issues are raised and potential injustice arises, we think it through and work it out, instead of just closing the door. The danger in this situation is that the Government are closing the door and effectively saying that the Jogee case is the final say on this matter. I do not think it is. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who has done sterling work, will be addressing the issue in the debate on Friday 2 February. On that basis, I will withdraw the new clause, but I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to what I have said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I do not want to go into the detail of these cases; I am just trying to make the point that the Jogee case went so far, but it still did not deal with the question of proportionality. One defence solicitor said: “They don’t need to prove that you did anything. If you’re part of a gang, it doesn’t matter, because the actus reus”— that is, being there— “and the mens rea”, the state of mind, “is being in the gang”. That could be applied in so many different cases. It could apply in boardrooms, and right across the piece: “You were there. You are guilty.” That is almost what it is saying, and that is what lawyers and Dr Gerry are trying to get the Government to consider. Let us have the debate and have the discussion with the experts.”
“I take the Minister’s points in good faith. Nothing that I say today—nothing whatever—condones any attempted criminality, but the question of proportionality, which we have discussed several times, is key. The Minister gave the example of a young man breaking into a care home, who was able to prove that he assisted the person. In that case, he was having to prove that he was not guilty. A fundamental element of British law is that someone is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round. I see the perplexed look on the Minister’s face, but the young man in that case had to prove that he was not guilty. This was not about the prosecution proving that he was guilty.”
“Members have had so much to take in already—we have heard that today—that I do not think that adding to that with more tragic narratives would be appropriate, but I will challenge them in a different way. For the purposes of the debate, I will set aside the emotional effect on the victim’s family, knowing that their daughter, son, brother, sister, mother, father or other relative has been left on the road or the side of the road to die by a fleeing driver because the driver decided not to stop, or, having stopped, got back into the car and drove off.”
“Not all of those are related to serious injury or fatality, which this clause deals with, but many families are left bereft and victims are left to carry on with their lives while perhaps very physically or neurologically damaged, not to mention the ongoing psychological impact of not knowing who was responsible and of not being able to settle. Let us say that families approached us in our constituency surgery having found out that some of the drivers involved in collisions had fled the scene—in other words, they had hit and run—and had avoided potentially more serious consequences as a result. What would we say to our constituents? In preparing this speech, I pondered whether to give case examples of lives destroyed and families left shattered. I decided not to.”
“In a year, 1,766 people killed were killed—1,711 in Britain and 55 in Northern Ireland—and 28,941 seriously injured: 28,031 in Britain and 910 in Northern Ireland. Road deaths have increased by 10% since 2021 and are close to pre-pandemic levels. Serious injuries are up 8% since 2021. I stand to be corrected, but on average, if I have my figures right, 85 people are killed or seriously injured every year in each of our constituencies. That is seven every month. The lives of our constituents are lost or irreparably damaged or changed. Meanwhile, many drivers simply leave the scene of the collision—as many as 17,000, according to figures from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau.”
“I am not servile to the wording of the new clauses; there can be variations on a theme. I recognise the legislative pressures on the Government and the workloads within Departments, but sometimes there are issues that have to be faced up to. In my view, this is one of them. Let me set the context for these proposals. Every 16 minutes, someone is killed or seriously injured on a road in the United Kingdom. That is quite a stark figure, as I am sure hon. Members will agree; it is an official figure based on the average over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. To put it into an annual context, it means that 31,000 men, women and children were killed or seriously injured in collisions, out of a total of about 135,000 casualties right across the piece, including very minor collisions.”
“I also thank Cycling UK, particularly Roger Geffen; Amy Aeron-Thomas at Action Vision Zero, who has worked on the issue; and a number of other organisations that have campaigned for many years. However, everything I say today is my responsibility and not that of others. Why have these measures not been put on the statute book before? Promises to review the law have been made in the past and, to be fair, have been partly fulfilled, but there remains a great deal to do. It has been 10 years since the Government said that they would undertake a full review and consultation on traffic offences. Regrettably, as we discuss these issues, no full review has taken place. It seems to me that there is an irrefutable case for introducing these amendments, or a variation of them, on potential penalties.”
“New clauses 17 and 18 relate to the offence of failing to remain at the scene of a traffic collision. My new clause 17 is clear and unambiguous. As Members will see from the explanatory statement, it would expand the existing offence of failing to stop after a road collision and would create a more serious penalty for failing to stop after a collision that results in the death or serious injury of the person hit by the vehicle. I emphasise the element that refers to victims of serious injury or death. I put on the record the support provided to me by RoadPeace, particularly by Lucy Harrison. I want to mention Pauline Fielding, who died last year; her son was killed in an accident several decades ago, and she was a sterling advocate and campaigner on the issue in the north-west. I put on record my thanks for the work that Pauline did.”
“Cuckooing is where the home of a vulnerable person is taken over by a criminal in order to use it to deal, store or take drugs, facilitate sex work, as a place for them to live, or to financially abuse the occupier. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“(2) For the purposes of this section— (a) ‘building’ includes any structure or part of a structure (including a temporary or moveable structure), and (b) a building is ‘residential’ if it is designed or adapted, before the time of entry, for use as a place to live. (3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).”— (Alex Cunningham.) This new clause would make cuckooing an offence.”
“New Clause 19 Use of another person’s dwelling place for criminal purposes: cuckooing “(1) A person ‘P’ commits an offence if— (a) P makes regular use of or takes up residence in a residential building lawfully occupied by another person ‘R’, (b) P uses the residential building as a base for criminal activities including but not limited to— (i) dealing, storing or taking unlawfully held controlled drugs, (ii) facilitating sex work, (iii) taking up residence without a lawful agreement with R in circumstances where R is under duress or otherwise being coerced or controlled, or (iv) financially abusing R.”
“I acknowledge and accept that this is not a transport Committee, but my proposals are within the scope of the Bill, so the Government have the power to pursue them if they wish. I ask the Ministers to take them away and think about them. I will be in touch with the Department for Transport, although, as I mentioned earlier, Departments are often packed out with work. None the less, this issue is of such import—it impacts on the lives of our constituents day in, day out—and we and the Government must consider it very carefully as early as practically possible. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I hear what the Minister says, and I will withdraw the motion. It was a probing amendment in an attempt to give consideration to this issue, which affects so many people—our constituents—day in, day out; I gave the figures. As I said, I recuse myself from giving examples, because they are dreadfully distressing for people and I do not want to distress Members any more than I need to. I recused myself from giving examples, of which there are so many, but I hope the Minister hears the spirit of what I tried to say. It is not about people wanting vengeance; it is about getting an element of justice. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to these matters, because at some point they will come back.”
“Given that the Minister has tabled new clause 45 and that the Opposition no doubt will agree to it, I will not press my new clause 15. I thank the Minister for her efforts and I thank everyone who has been involved in this important work.”
“Members for Chelmsford and for Witham (Priti Patel), who have been involved too. I will not press my own new clause 15, given that it would, in effect, introduce what the Government have now introduced. I give further thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South. Spiking is an evil crime. As things stand, it is shockingly widespread in this country. A YouGov poll of 2,000 people commissioned for The Independent found that 11% of female respondents and 6% of male respondents said that they had been spiked. The problem has only been growing. Freedom of information requests submitted by Channel 4 recently revealed that the number of drug spiking incidents reported to the police has increased fivefold in the past few years.”
“Getting to this point has been the result of determined action by Members across the House, and I am glad to have played a very small part in achieving this vital change. In particular, I highlight the sustained and sterling efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South. Her constituents will be proud of her, and victims and their families grateful for her hard work and determination. Over the years, she has campaigned for these changes, leading a debate just last month on this very topic. I also praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South welcomes the changes that the Bill will make. I also pay tribute to the right hon.”
“It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I thank the Minister for her approach. I am pleased to speak to Government new clause 45 and new clause 15, which offer important updates to the language and content of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. After so many years of deliberation, I am glad that the Government have constructively concluded that legislative action is needed to protect victims of spiking and to better ensure that the perpetrators of such heinous crimes face justice. I take the opportunity to note that since the Government’s statement in July, in which they said that they had begun to consider legislative action to introduce a specific offence of spiking in the light of concerns that continued to be expressed by parliamentarians, we have moved on significantly.”
“T3. What assessment has the Minister made of the results of private sector trials in relation to the introduction of a four-day week? Will he meet me in due course to discuss the results of those trials?”
“The Minister only earlier extolled the virtues of devolution. In fact, page 29 of the 2019 Tory manifesto said that the “ambition is for full devolution across England, building on the successful devolution of powers to city region mayors” and others. How does that laudable aim fit with the Government’s shocking attempts, through threats and bullying tactics, to strangle the ability of local councils such as South Cambridgeshire District Council to trial a four-day week and other money-saving initiatives?”
“Q12. The Prime Minister has been very keen to take credit for falling inflation in previous months. Will he now take responsibility for today’s rise?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure seems to be in contradiction to the position that many police forces are in? Because they lack resource capacity, they are withdrawing from dealing with issues relating to mental health and are saying, “We don’t have the capacity to do it.” Does my hon. Friend agree that this measure will put more pressure on police forces at a time when they are having to withdraw from some operational interventions?”
“On the point that the Minister made in his intervention, does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is circuitous? The reason why the police were involved in mental health interventions in the past, although they are pulling away from them, was that there were such strains and stresses on the health service and local government that they had to fill the gap. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is getting to the farcical stage, with gaps in resources left, right and centre?”
“I am sure that everyone in this room agrees, notwithstanding the current debate among some Government Members in relation to the ECHR more broadly, that article 8 is pretty uncontentious. What is perhaps more contentious is where it is breached. It is important that we keep that in mind.”
“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” As paragraph 2 above sets out, it is unlawful under the Act for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with the convention right, unless it is compelled or permitted by statute to do otherwise. There is an excellent lecture by Robert Walker entitled “The English Law of Privacy: an Evolving Human Right”, which is well worth a perusal.”
“Amendments 61, 58 and 59 are linked, but I will speak first to amendment 61, a thoughtful amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. I want to address an issue relating to the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European convention on human rights into UK law, with particular reference to section 6, “Acts of public authorities”, which came into force in October 2000. I stand to be corrected, but as far as I am concerned, for the purposes of the amendment, the right to respect for private and family life informs the relevant police powers and sets them in context. Article 8 of the convention states: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.”
“As I have indicated, the College of Policing is already well versed in the production of codes of practice, including—to name just a couple—those on the use of the police national computer and the law enforcement data service and on armed policing and the use of less lethal weapons. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and I have made about the amendments. As my hon. Friend says, if the Minister will not accept the amendments, we ask him for an assurance that the spirit of them, if not the letter, will be included in the Bill. I know that the Minister is always equitable in these matters, and I am sure he will give careful consideration to the well-thought-out and considered views expressed by my hon. Friend.”
“A review after a couple of years, to ensure consistency, is important. I agree with amendment 59, which would require the College of Policing to produce a code of practice in relation to the use of the powers. The College of Policing often talks about using “evidence-based knowledge in everything we develop”. That is crucial, so I am sure that it would welcome my hon. Friend’s proposal. It is important that the modus operandi of the police officer or constable be guided by authorised professional practice guidelines, which the College of Policing has, to ensure that their interventions are as appropriate as possible. That is all the more important in the light of the challenging circumstances in which some powers will be used.”
“Let us say that in the first five or six months of last year, there were about 50 or 60 bike thefts in my constituency and that half of those bikes had a locator on them. Although they may have a “stolen” bike in their home, people are not used to the police just turning up, going into the shed and getting the bike, so we must explain why we are doing that. It is important to have a review after a couple of years to ensure that my constituents know that they will not be on the receiving end of a disproportionate intervention by the authorities. I have no reason to believe that the powers will be used indiscriminately or outside the spirit of our discussions today, but we live in a democracy and we want to live in a cohesive society, so it is important that we have checks and balances.”
“My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has laid out the context for amendments 58 and 59 with thoughtfulness and with consideration, as he did for amendment 61. I agree with him that seeking a review within two years or thereabouts of the application of the powers is really important. It is important to ensure that when we give additional powers to the police, we ensure that the operation, implementation and use of those powers are subject to review. I think we would all agree that it would be beneficial on various levels, including operationally and in policy terms, to step back after a period of time and take a look at the implementation of the powers. Notwithstanding the fact that my hon. Friend has described the powers as narrow, people will not be used to them.”
“I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that there is a danger that we will get mission creep and, more importantly, that the public will see it as such? As time moves on, we will get another bit, another bit and another bit.”
“I heard the Minister’s intervention, but I am increasingly concerned about the point I made about mission creep and proportionality. That is what we must bear in mind. Would my hon. Friend agree? This partly goes back to amendments 61, 58 and 59: let us be as precise and specific as we can—in fact, let us have some control rather than this mission creep, and always have human rights and the question of proportionality in the back of our minds.”
“We are dealing with a vast area, and this must be set in that wider context. Perhaps the Minister can go off and think this through, outside this Criminal Justice Bill, and set in process a review of the whole question of artificial intelligence and so on, as part of crime reduction, crime prevention and crime detection.”
“We can all come up with our examples, whether they be of rapists or a missing person, for example—who would not want to find a missing person who might have been missing for years and who we are trying to find? That is not the issue. We have used DNA in the past, and we all think it is wonderful, but it is used within parameters. Yes, let us have CCTV and facial recognition, but they have to be used within a certain context. Then there is body-worn video and the move towards using algorithms in the detection and prevention of crime —and, in some places, the deterrence of crime—and also the issues around AI. I do not think there is a problem with that at all, but it has to be set in a context. We should not take a piecemeal approach to the whole question of technology.”
“I am unsure whether the Minister has considered the issue in relation to the victims charter. The victim’s family could be in court. Is there the potential, as part of the victims charter, to consult the family—”
“Yes—to consult the victim or the victim’s family on that issue? The victim or their family could be sat there, and the person could be brought in and be challenging, difficult and so on. As part of victims’ rights, would the Minister consider giving consideration to the consultation of the victim or their family in those situations?”
“Yes, I think it is important that families be consulted throughout the process and beyond it. The judge has discretion, but the victim should have the right to be consulted. What the judge does is a completely different matter, but the families or the victim should be consulted if appropriate.”
“This is an incredibly complex, difficult, challenging and sensitive subject. A question arises, though, and I will put it to the Minister. There are many definitions of grooming. There are international definitions —legal definitions in other countries—of what grooming is. So while I accept the point the Minister makes about trying to keep it flexible, we have the capacity to easily —if not easily, then as clearly as we can—determine what exploitation or grooming actually is. The work has been done and we have to build upon it. Does the Minister not agree that it is not beyond the wit of this Parliament to try to determine or define what we consider grooming to be? I say that with all of the sensitivity that I can bring.”
“I hear the point that the Minister makes about the ability to vocalise. I gently challenge her on that one, however, because people who have been abused and exploited for many years, from childhood through, also find it incredibly difficult to vocalise. There is no question about that whatever. That is not to dismiss anything she says, but it is to recognise that vocalisation does not start at 18, 20 or 21; it might never, ever appear, given the nature of the exploitation and abuse that has happened to that particular person. I ask her just to think on that particular issue, not necessarily to respond now, but to put it into the mix.”
“On that particular point about possession of a SIM farm, the Bill says that a person charged with an offence under the clause must provide “good reason”. It goes on to state what the good reasons are, for example providing broadcasting services. However, I would have assumed that a broadcasting service would be already licensed; similarly, if a body is operating a genuine public transport service, it is probably a local authority. Could the Minister explain that “good reason” a bit more? It seems a bit woolly or wide to me. Somebody who is clever enough to run a SIM farm would be clever enough to find a way around that somehow. I want to support the Government in advancing their proposal, but is it possible to tighten it up a bit more?”
“Once we have let this issue out of the bag, so to speak, we have to very carefully consider the implications further down the line in terms of institutional abuse, because that is what it amounts to.”
“My hon. Friends the Member for Birmingham, Yardley and the shadow Minister have made excellent points. Once we go into this, we start to find that there are areas we need to think out a bit more clearly. We may have to come back to this in due course, potentially in future legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley prompted me to think about the headteacher who committed suicide following an Ofsted inspection. The coroner’s court directly attributed that—partly, at the very least—to the institutional impact that that organisation had on her. Does my hon. Friend the shadow Minister agree that these are very important matters that we have to think through?”
“In advance of the Budget, what discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury regarding crucial funding for the development and uptake of human-specific technologies, as opposed to using 3 million animals for experimentation and research in the UK?”