Peter Dowd MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jul 2025 · ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his largesse and for promoting me to Speaker. Question put and agreed to.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  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 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. 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. 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. 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.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I call Yasmin Qureshi.

• 20 May 2025 · GP Services: Christchurch · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 May 2025 · Pensions: Expatriates · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members that we are not supposed to use the second person. Please address things through me and not directly to other Members.

• 14 May 2025 · Future of Public Libraries · Hansard source

  More

  Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, can Members bear in mind that I want to give the sponsor the opportunity to wind up at the end?

• 14 May 2025 · Future of Public Libraries · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 14 May 2025 · Future of Public Libraries · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

• 14 May 2025 · Rebalancing Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Apr 2025 · School-based Nursery Capital Grants · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  I assure the hon. Gentleman that the smile was for both reasons.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Will Members address the Chair, not one another directly, please?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Paul Kohler.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Arm’s-Length Bodies (Review) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 14 Mar 2025 · Arm’s-Length Bodies (Review) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 14 Mar 2025 · Arm’s-Length Bodies (Review) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is such a fundamental issue for the hon. Member, so why should we pay any attention whatever to what he is saying to us today?

• 14 Mar 2025 · Arm’s-Length Bodies (Review) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 14 Mar 2025 · Arm’s-Length Bodies (Review) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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?