Peter Dowd MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, I do not want to, but I will.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Breakfast Clubs: Early Adopters · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Will people pay respect to the Chair’s decision? When I ask you to sit down, would you please do so? Thank you very much.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Jim Shannon, please carry on.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  I call Catherine Fookes, who has maybe 30 seconds to sum up.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  I gently remind Members that referring to who is and is not present is the road to perdition.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to intervene, because we are right up against it. Thank you.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Dental Healthcare: East Anglia · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Rare Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Gentleman that at no point during my contribution did I mention either Shakespeare or Sophocles.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I say that it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for giving the House the opportunity to debate the contents of his Bill, as set out in its 25 clauses, and the issues that surround it, which have clearly been the subject of consternation, to say the least, in some quarters. I listened carefully to the many points and assertions that the hon. and learned Gentleman made; no doubt everybody in the Chamber listened to them. I do not underestimate the significance of the concerns—perceived, real or otherwise—that he and many others have in relation to the operation of the Windsor framework, which in effect was a successfully negotiated recalibration of the Northern Ireland protocol. There is no doubt that all sides worked hard to achieve an agreement, given the obvious complexities, nuances and tensions that were bound to arise when the implementation of the decision to leave the European Union was made in the light of the 2016 referendum. The detailed statement made by the most recent former Prime Minister, the response to it and the questions about it on 27 February 2023 set the tone, in my view—I think that is also the view of many other hon. Members—for a genuine attempt on all sides of the negotiation to be as flexible as possible, given the circumstances. I want to quote a few points from that debate. 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. 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. 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.]

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is a really good point, and I am pleased we are having this debate, because these are the points we need to consider carefully when we look at these issues and figure them out. It is an excellent point; I think we will all reflect on that, and I hope the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and hon. Gentleman across the Chamber reflect on it. It is important to note that the protection of the Belfast agreement was paramount and that was there to reassure the communities of Northern Ireland. I hope that this debate continues, notwithstanding some of the points that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim made, so that people understand that we are here to reassure as much as we can.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My stance is that if a person does not trust me in a democratic environment, they are perfectly entitled to go down to the ballot box and put an X against my opponent’s name, and I will respect them for doing so. That is the way we do it in this country.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will, but I first want to make a point about the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. I know that he holds views that are born out of real belief in, and commitment to, his constituents and the wider communities across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that is exactly the view that I take. I hold views born out of a real belief in, and commitment to, my constituents, and every Member in this Chamber takes that approach. Who am I to challenge their integrity on that? I am not in any way going to attempt that, either from my side or to cast aspersions on the other side.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think it is a humiliating concession, but if it is a concession at all, I think it is an attempt, given the circumstances that we faced, to reach an agreement with trading partners in the light of the decision of the British people. We live in a world where we do not get everything we want. We live in a world where there is a little bit of give and a little bit of take, and sometimes we are able to give more than we take, and vice versa. As I have said, however, I do not want to go down that rabbit hole, because I do not think it is necessarily the subject of today’s debate. We touch on it, and it is pertinent, but I do not think it should dominate the whole debate. There is no doubt that the subject is fraught with all the concerns and anxieties and consternation to which I referred earlier, and we have to operate in the wider political environment and milieu in which countries have to operate all the time. I think it only fair to point out that the law of unintended consequences may decide to poke its head around the door, and perhaps even to walk into the Chamber, and there will be nothing that we can do. That is the very nature of the issue that confronts us. There are no easy solutions. There are no easy answers to difficult questions. There are no off-the-cuff responses that will sort out the issue. That is a statement of the obvious.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I understand it, that issue is being negotiated. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not accept the point he made about subjugation. I do not think it is subjugation, and I will come to that. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I respect the point he made, and I respect the views of his constituents, just as I respect the views of my constituents. But it does not alter the fact that the negotiation is taking place. As I said before—I will repeat it again—these things are never, ever symmetrical.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The question we have to ask ourselves is whether the Bill before us is a breach of a treaty or agreement. I will leave that question in the air while I let the hon. Gentleman intervene.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have to be very careful of the law of unintended consequences when we go down a particular path. Issues are bound to arise that either no one thought about or thought would have significance outside of an abstract environment but subsequently became significant, or that were parked so that we could come back to them at a later date. The reality, as we found throughout the whole post-referendum period—oven-ready this and oven-ready that—is that lots of things that were parked are coming back to bite. The problem with that, as I said, is the law of unseen and ignored consequences—those things are waiting around the corner, and turn up like an uninvited and unwelcome guest in our house. Please bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the potential unintended consequences of coming out of a treaty. Imagine what would happen if we decided to abrogate the North Atlantic treaty—which, of course, no one would dream of doing. We know there would certainly be huge consequences to such an action. I suspect Members understand there would be pretty immediate and most probably predictable consequences to that. However, it is sometimes the unpredictability of taking actions that comes back to haunt us. The same could be said for other treaties, which may appear to be of little significance and consequence in the short term, but which might take on a whole new persona down the line. I am not sure that many people would initially grasp the consequences of, say, breaching the Antarctic treaty, but there would be consequences in due course. If we abrogate a treaty, or part of a treaty, it is unlikely that we can then somehow revisit it, change domestic law and expect other countries to accept that. I will finish on this point, because it is important. There are other treaties that we have to look to—I could go into detail on them, but I will not. What about— [ Interruption. ] Well, if Members insist. How about the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty? What would happen if we decided to tweak that a little bit through domestic law?