Peter Dowd MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  In this place, we are enabled to ask these questions in a whole variety of different ways, including oral questions, written questions and meetings with Ministers. They are still available right across the piece, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. Over a number years in this place, I have sometimes felt that I have not been listened to by the Government of the day. That is what I believed. [ Interruption. ] I was often listened to by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, and I completely accept that there were honourable exceptions. But at the end of the day, we live in a democracy in which we can challenge time after time, and we have to be persistent. I repeat that there are differences of opinion, but I respect them. I hope that today’s debate is being conducted in an as open and transparent way as possible. This is not the end of the matter. Even if the Bill does not go through, the matter is not over. Nobody is going to pretend that somehow we are all going to go our separate ways and no one is ever going to ask a question or challenge a Minister in the future. This issue will come back time after time. I know emotion has its place, but so do hard facts, statistics and evidence, and they have to be balanced against one another. However, passion can sometimes lead to a febrile atmosphere that dominates, and we have to guard against that.

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

  More

  The framework attempts to do that, and there is nothing, I suspect, that prevents those issues being teased out in more detail as time goes by, but at the end of the day, I do not live in a perfect world—I do not know about anybody else. I have constituents, for example, who have been unable to get access to drugs, and that is nothing to do with this issue; it is to do with a whole range of matters that have developed over the past 14 years in relation to Government policy, but I do not want to go there. I and other hon. Members are trying to do the best we possibly can, given the circumstances we have inherited. I know that might be cold comfort for some Members across the Chamber, but it is said with the best intent and with sincerity. It is not to brush this matter aside; it is a recognition that there are challenges, but those challenges were bound to crop up given some of the points I raised earlier.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I was going to quote from the Belfast agreement in detail, but I decided not to do so. I did read it, and I remember it at the time as well. I implore him not to push me on that matter. There are times when I have been unhappy with the decisions made. I have been perplexed when, during the Parliaments I have been part of, conventions and understandings that had been in operation for decades were pushed aside for short-term political expediency. It is one thing to go down that path in the operation of the workings of this House, but it is another to invoke that type of approach when dealing with agreements and treaties, especially when those are with trading partners and neighbours. I was tempted to explore the Bill clause by clause—all 25 of them—in this contribution, but I resisted— [ Interruption. ] I did, and it was born out of discipline and willpower. I decided not to test the patience of the Chair and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I will draw my contribution to a close, and hope that hon. Members across the House take what I have said in good faith and without any rancour.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a really important and fair point. We have to be very careful in this area when we have international obligations, and we have to be even more cautious when we are dealing with the situation that we found ourselves in given the context of the Belfast agreement. I am drawing to a close, Members will be pleased to know, but it is worthwhile exploring the concept in a little more detail, because as I said, it goes to our position as a custodian. The circumstances in which we can depart from obligations are fairly clear: for instance, by mutual agreement—that is unsurprising—or implied right to withdraw. Neither of those is the case in this situation. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks they should be, but I do not believe that they are. Can we say that the treaty or agreement is no longer in place due to agreed time limits or sunset clauses? The answer to that question is no. Has the other side materially breached the treaty or the agreement, which would in turn absolve us of our obligations? Well, I do not think that applies either. What about our ability to carry out the agreement because of the “disappearance or destruction” of an object crucial to the operation of the treaty? That get-out clause does not exist, either; well, not that I am aware. In fact, the Windsor framework is protected by the Vienna convention on treaties, as was brought out during the statement that I referred to.

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

  More

  I regret that the hon. Gentleman takes that view of what I am saying. I would not say it is not fair, but I am genuinely trying to be as conciliatory as I can be given the circumstances in relation to the question of trust. The question is this: is this Bill a breach of an agreement or a treaty? In my view it is, and I think most people are not denying that assertion. There may be some people who do so, but as a House of Commons paper of 4 December says on page 17: “No rule of a state’s domestic law can be used to justify a breach of its existing international obligations. This principle is set out in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.” I genuinely believe that I am bound by that. We can caveat any breach of international law until the cows come home; it can be claimed that it is out of the concept of necessity as referred to before in terms of international law. However, although we can claim whatever we want, it does not wash with other countries with which we have negotiated, and that in a sense is all there is to that particular point.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: treaties are renegotiated all the time. Yes, that can be messy—as I have said, we have a great deal of experience of how messy it is—but that has never stopped us from doing it, or attempting to do it, in good faith.

• 27 Nov 2024 · UK Air and Missile Defences · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Sorry, Minister, but I want to give the Member in charge the opportunity to wind up. You have a minute left.

• 27 Nov 2024 · UK Air and Missile Defences · Hansard source

  More

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

• 26 Nov 2024 · Online Safety: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

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

• 26 Nov 2024 · Online Safety: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I will keep this to an informal four-minute limit. Regrettably, if Members speak beyond that, I will have to introduce a formal figure.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Online Safety: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I would like to bring to the attention of Members that we have had a huge number of interventions and we are 20 minutes into the debate. The Minister and Opposition spokesperson will get up at just after half past 3. It is a matter for the speaker whether she takes more interventions, but that does mean that the amount of time for those who have asked to speak will be significantly more restricted than I originally planned. That is just a housekeeping matter to be aware of. There is also an issue about the length of interventions: they are getting a bit long. On a matter of this importance, I do not want to restrict interventions and contributions, but I ask Members to please bear that in mind.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Online Safety: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I call Jess Asato.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Online Safety: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Yes.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Online Safety: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to have to introduce a formal time limit of three and a half minutes.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Online Safety: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I call Lola McEvoy to briefly respond to the debate.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for your forbearance. Please try to keep to three minutes. I call Tim Farron.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  I call the Minister.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Suicide and Mental Health of Young People: Tatton · Hansard source

  More

  I will call Esther McVey to move the motion. 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.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Uyghur and Turkic Muslims: Forced Labour in China · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. Only those who were here at the start will be able to speak.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Peak Forest and Macclesfield Canals · Hansard source

  More

  Before I call Lisa Smart to move the motion, I inform hon. Members that the parliamentary digital communications team will be conducting secondary filming during the debate. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, the Member in charge of the debate will not have an opportunity to wind up.

• 16 Oct 2024 · National Highways Maintenance and the A5036 · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I am trying to find the way forward. That bridge is a reflection of National Highways’ whole approach to things: we are an encumbrance on the stuff it has to do. With some other people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), I met one of the previous transport Ministers, Baroness Vere, because National Highways refused to give certain information after a freedom of information request, and she had to say to its representatives, “Give them the information.” That is the context in which we are operating. I do not want to get too technical, but it is important that National Highways provides data and shares information to show us what it is doing, and why it is or is not doing certain things. It is, in effect, a company with a budget of £1.34 billion in resource and about £3.5 billion in capital. Why it cannot use some of that to replace a bridge that has been there for 50 years is beyond me, but that is a different point. Litter is of concern. That has been identified in the report from the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, which I had to speak to about the situation, and it investigated National Highways. Surprise, surprise—although it was not a surprise in the least to me—the document it produced, the “ORR investigation into National Highways’ compliance with its licence and delivery of the second road investment strategy”, talks about: “National Highways apparent concerns about sharing data and information restricts its ability to show how it is performing its function and results in more work for the company and for ORR.” That quote sums up the situation. Of course, the Office of Rail and Road had to highlight that point to National Highways. The document goes on to say: “National Highways has not been able to demonstrate consistently and reasonably, with evidence, the basis upon which it has taken decisions and the consequences of doing so on users” —that is, my constituents— “and network performance…During the investigation we identified instances where the company held material that it could, and should, have shared with ORR sooner, or where it told us it did not hold data or information that we needed to effectively carry out our statutory functions (and that we consider that the company should reasonably have held in order to carry out its own statutory functions)…National Highways provided around 300 pieces of information…While we would not have expected to see all this information as part of our business as usual or enhanced monitoring, there was enough across six areas of concern to indicate that there is more information that the company could and should share with us.” That, from the independent Office of Rail and Road, again sums up the attitude of National Highways. In the grand scheme of things, how can any of us at a local level try to find that information, when even the Office of Rail and Road cannot get the information that it needs? As I indicated before, a Minister had to tell National Highways to give us the information. When we do find out the information it provides, it is absolutely outrageous, to the point that a Member of Parliament— that is, me—has to go off and raise the matter with a Minister. That is the context. It is very difficult to engage with National Highways. There is an absolute lack of candour, a complete lack of respect for elected Members, a lack of respect for the local authority, but most important of all, a lack of respect for my constituents who have to live along that road, which is already challenging for them. I ask the Minister to take those issues into account when he responds, because this matter is not going to go away; this debate is not the end of it. The sooner National Highways understands that and tries to engage with me, with local residents and with the local authority—the partners and the users—the better. I will finish on that point, but I reaffirm that this matter is not going away. I will be holding National Highways to account in every way I can to ensure that my constituents get the fair deal that they are entitled to.

• 16 Oct 2024 · National Highways Maintenance and the A5036 · Hansard source

  More

  I heard what the Minister said in relation to the footbridge—another matter that I will take up. There was massive, major consultation on the replacement of the footbridge, and for some reason National Highways chose to ditch that plan without discussing it with anybody at all. That is the concern our concern. Nobody knows why. Nobody knows what the information was based on. That is where we are at. I would ask National Highways to hold on until we can pursue this further, because what it did is absolutely outrageous.

• 16 Oct 2024 · National Highways Maintenance and the A5036 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered National Highways maintenance and management of the A5036. May I say what an absolute pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris? It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his chair, although not as much of a pleasure as it is to see Mrs Harris in the Chair. I will set out some context to the issue of National Highways’ maintenance and management of the A5036. The A5036 is the main road from the M57 and M58 down to Liverpool port—in effect, the port access road—and is, I think, the only A road in the whole Merseyside city region that is managed by National Highways. There may be smaller ones in the Wirral or south Wirral, but for all intents and purposes it is the only major A road that National Highways manages in Merseyside city region, as I understand it. The road has about 40,000 traffic movements a day, or thereabouts, which is about 1,600 an hour; hon. Members can imagine that that is huge amount of traffic at peak times. The road is about 4 miles long, from the M58, down the A580, through to the docks. I can also provide a bit more context as to why I am raising this matter. Some months ago, I had to raise with Mr Speaker a point of order in relation to what I saw as the inappropriate behaviour of the north-west office of National Highways. That revolved around a freedom of information request that a local group, the Rimrose Valley Friends, submitted to the office. When we got the information, some of the comments were completely inappropriate. They more or less said, “We best not tell the Member of Parliament”—that is, me—“about certain issues, because he will go off and rile up his constituents.” That is what they said, and that is the tone and culture of that organisation. I raised that with Mr Speaker, and the then Minister came to speak to me about it. That has set the tone for attempts to engage with National Highways in my constituency. The bottom line is this: I do not underestimate the challenges of keeping a road of this nature, which is about 4 miles long, in some sort of shape in collaboration with the local authority. However, it is not a motorway; it is a road that goes from the M58 and M57 through residential areas. The residents expect that National Highways, in collaboration with whatever its partners are, will keep that road in some sort of order. I know that the local authority has had challenges working with National Highways on the matter, whether in relation to litter, detritus on the road or weeds. It appears that National Highways’ view is that the weeds do not affect the safety of the road—that, although the weeds are everywhere, they are not six feet high. National Highways seems to take the view that that does not matter, and it does not take into account the environment that people have to live in. It is clear that the people along the road and in the area are put out, to say the least, by National Highways’ attitude to the matter. National Highways has an insouciant attitude: it does not think it is accountable to anybody, and it feels able to make the comments that it made about me in documentation. That sets the tone—I think I have said that three or four times—and consequently trying to engage with it is very difficult. I will tell hon. Members another anecdote. There is a footbridge at Park Lane West that has been there for about 50 years. It links two communities, which include a church and a school; most children from one side of that major road have to go to the other. There were plans to rebuild it—National Highways bought land to build it up to modern standards—but there was delay after delay, and after a lorry collision it was decided that the bridge would be taken down. That gave National Highways the opportunity, as part of its maintenance programme, not to go ahead with building the new bridge. National Highways said that the figures had gone up, although it is difficult to find out precisely by how much because of its secrecy and lack of candour. I said, “Look, if it’s outside the parameters of the particular cost set for the bridge, you may wish to go and ask the Department for exemption.” There is always the opportunity to use discretion in such situations. If National Highways was not able to use its discretion, perhaps the Department or the Minister could do so. The situation rolled on and on, and about four weeks ago I asked the people at National Highways whether they had bothered to ask the Minister. They said, “No. We haven’t bothered to ask the Minister because we don’t want the bridge.” That was not the question they were asked. They were asked, “Could you go off and ask the Minister, the Department or whoever else for this dispensation?” That is the culture. They decided—as it said in the document—that a footbridge is a 20th-century solution. Try telling that to all those children who are frightened to death to walk across the road, even with their parents. Try telling that to older people. It is a massively busy junction. It seems that the focus is just on getting traffic along the road without taking appropriate account of the public and pedestrians. Of course, I have been told, “Oh well, we’re going to have a new pedestrian approach to this crossing.”

• 15 Oct 2024 · Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  I will call Robin Swann 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.