Town and City Centre Safety

Debate between Scott Arthur and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lola McEvoy]

My hon. Friend is eloquently making a point about the funding given to the police to eradicate e-bike crime. Does he agree that we would be in a better position if we had more bobbies on bikes? Perhaps the Minister will talk about that in her speech.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. We do not have very much longer. I want to get other Members in, and the Minister and the Opposition spokespeople need the opportunity to speak. I am not telling the hon. Gentleman not to take interventions, but I will end up cutting somebody out of the debate if he does.

[Dr Arthur]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. I appreciate that guidance.

We absolutely need more police, but unfortunately their budget was cut in Scotland last year, which has made their job even harder. I recently wrote to Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat. They track their riders’ every move, and they say that despite knowing where they are all the time, they cannot use their apps to track their speeds and whether they are riding recklessly unless I know the order number for the thing that is being delivered. I find that absolutely incredible. I have, however, been offered a place on the Deliveroo rider training course—it will be interesting to see what that comprises. It is really disappointing that the companies are not taking more ownership of the problem.

I approached the Minister for road safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and she confirmed that the Government will launch a national work-related road safety charter. I really hope the food delivery companies engage with it constructively, but I have my doubts that it will change matters on the ground. Recklessness and exploitation of their workers is fundamental to those companies’ business model, and we need to address that. I hope the Government will legislate if the companies do not step up.

It was said earlier that the Government must take seriously their powers to manage the import and sale of these illegal bikes, and I agree. I find it absolutely incredible that people can buy them given that, in most of our constituencies, there is nowhere that they can ride them. I hope the Minister will address that point too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order.

European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Scott Arthur and Peter Dowd

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend may be in a much better position to say, but I suspect that this is the place where that consultation happens. We listen to the views of people, and we can reflect them in our observations.

I want to continue on the theme of trust. Dictators and autocrats consider treaties a sign of weakness, to be dispensed with as soon as is practicable. In this country, we tend not to take that transactional and cynical approach. I am forever thankful for that. Keeping faith with a treaty or agreement that we have signed without duress says a good detail about our moral compass as a nation.

Having started on the issue of the importance of treaties, I want to look at one or two examples of the 14,000 treaties to which this country is a signatory. [Interruption.] No, I will not go into the treaty issue again, but I refer Members to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s online treaties database if they wish to look up the treaties that this country has signed over the years—and yes, I do have a life.

This country has had a good deal of experience in writing, agreeing, monitoring, enforcing and advising on treaties. There is little that this country does not know about the history, implementation, negotiation, monitoring and abrogation of treaties. We may even be the place to go to get that advice. Over the decades, this country has decided in good faith and with good intentions to put its name, credibility and integrity up front by signing treaties to ensure that its national interests can are secured as far as is practically possible. We have centuries of experience of the pitfalls, implications and consequences of a unilateral breach of a treaty. I ask colleagues to hold that thought during the deliberations on this Bill.

It goes without saying that serious, sometimes convoluted, diplomatic manoeuvres and mental gymnastics are involved in agreeing the terms of a treaty. That will come as no surprise at all to Members—if it did, that would be surprising to me. One has to be careful before signing a treaty. That does not mean that one does not sign it, but once an agreement is reached, signed and ratified, it remains duly constituted until the treaty is renegotiated through the proper channels. Do we really want to feel, as Sophocles said, that

“No treaty is ever an impediment to a cheat”?

I do not believe we are cheats. Sophocles also said:

“All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride.”

I hope that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim does not have too much pride. Call me old-fashioned, but I am afraid that whether we like it or not, we have to negotiate a treaty or an agreement through the proper channels.

[Dr Arthur]

I am impressed by my hon. Friend’s knowledge of the classics. He makes an important point, because it is almost as if we were being presented with a false choice between ripping up the Windsor agreement and setting it in stone. It has already been shown that the agreement can adapt and evolve, and it will continue to do so.

[Peter Dowd]

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.