Oliver Dowden MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jun 2026 · G7 Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my concern, and that of many of my constituents, about elements of the Iran deal, in particular that the early sanctions relief, access to frozen Iranian assets and $300 billion of economic reconstruction development aid could find its way back to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, further strengthening an organisation that has done so much damage to regional stability and global stability, both directly and through its proxies? While I am at it, will the Deputy Prime Minister sit down with the police and find some way of stopping the ridiculous heckling and disruption of Prime Ministers on the steps of Downing Street when they are trying to make statements, which further adds to our considerable international embarrassment right now?

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is of course entirely correct. Members on the Labour Back Benches are, given their presence in the Chamber for this debate, at the more hawkish and national security end of the left-wing spectrum, but there are elements of the liberal left who succumb to that equivalence argument and it is profoundly dangerous. The 2015 review of the Muslim Brotherhood concluded that membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered a possible indicator of extremism. A decade later, in the current far more dangerous geopolitical environment, we need to look again at that assessment. That is why I continue to believe that the Government should take up the opportunity to do so. Some of our closest allies have done so and indeed have taken a much more robust approach. For example, the United Arab Emirates has designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation. We should ask ourselves why a country such as the UAE has such concerns about the radicalisation of its own students in our mosques that they are restricting their study here. The test under this Bill is rightly a foreign powers threat test, and there may well be other avenues for addressing this issue, but none the less I make the point that where an ideological body or a body linked to an ideological movement is acting to the benefit of a hostile state, this regime, alongside others, should apply. Finally, I would like to address the future-proofing of this legislation, which has been touched on by some Members. Just as threat actors have evolved, so too have their methods, and foreign powers and their proxies no longer exclusively rely on the old-school methods of human surveillance, forged documents and so on. They can deploy bots that distort the democratic debate, as we have seen; ransomware to cripple business; cyber-attacks to disrupt public services; and deepfakes to impersonate trusted public figures. That list goes on, and AI will accelerate all of that—a point I made at the UN General Assembly ahead of the Bletchley Park AI safety summit. Cross-Government co-ordination to address this issue is more urgent than ever. In this country we cannot just look at state threats purely in a physical silo, detached from the digital domain. Hostile states will use AI to automate reconnaissance, scale spear phishing, identify vulnerabilities, and so on. A criminal who once needed specialist skills may increasingly be able to purchase or access those capabilities through AI-enabled tools, and hostile states that once needed sophisticated cyber-units may be able to outsource, automate or accelerate parts of that work. Many Members will be familiar with the concerns and indeed opportunities surrounding Claude Mythos and its advanced cyber-capable AI models. That is a warning to us, but it is a warning of much more to come in this space.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  Many young people take time to adapt to new jobs and simply have not proved themselves after six months, but with the coming into force of the Government’s Employment Rights Act 2025, the period for dismissal without fault will be reduced from two years to six months. Many employers have told me that this will make them much less likely to employ young people, because they fear that they will not prove themselves in that time period, and that it will be much harder to get rid of them after six months. This provision is not due to come into force until the beginning of next year, so at this very late stage, can I urge the Minister to look at it again? It will make a bad situation so much worse for young people.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  As the Chancellor has repeatedly said, at the root of the current economic crisis lies the closure of the strait of Hormuz. What conversations have the Government had with the Trump Administration, both about insurance and, more importantly, about deploying UK military assets to secure the reopening of the strait? Does she agree that a more robust approach might reassure our friends and allies in the Gulf who invest so much in the United Kingdom? Our presence there has been notable by its absence.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I totally agree. Indeed, that is why the National Cyber Security Centre, working in conjunction with the last Government and now the current Government, has set out the whole-of-Government approach. It cannot just be about the actions of individual Government Ministers or individual actors in the private sector; the whole of Government need to act together. On the further steps we could and should have taken—this goes back to my intervention on the Minister—I do think that more pressure needs to be brought to bear on Ministers in terms of their accountability for cyber-security, and I fear that if we do not put this into primary legislation, it can slip further and further down Ministers’ in-trays. Although Ministers have a desire to address it, more pressing and immediate problems distract their attention. I have some constructive suggestions about how we can improve the proposed legislation. The first is about many of the powers being delegated to secondary legislation or ministerial direction. I do not have a problem with that, because it is essential that we have a framework piece of legislation and then the flexibility to allow secondary legislation to be brought forward to address challenges as they arise, but I urge Ministers to undertake a meaningful and mandatory consultation on any secondary legislation that comes forward, so that businesses and others can contribute to it. I also caution against Ministers devolving to regulators their duties in respect of cyber-security. Too often—again, this applies to Governments of both colours—regulators are empowered to address cyber-security problems or any other problems. They then charge off in one direction and fail to take into account questions such as proportionality—the impact of the regulations versus their economic burden—and Parliament and Ministers cease to have a significant role. I urge Ministers to keep a tight grip on regulators and on the instructions that they give them. I would also be a little cautious about some of the arguments made by hon. Members about the need constantly to expand the scope of this legislation to further areas of the private sector. It is very easy for us in this Chamber to talk about the need for further legislation, but when a small business is faced with a huge Act and required to interpret it, it looks a very daunting prospect. My preference would be to continue the sort of co-operation that we have seen through the whole-of-society approach advocated by the NCSC. On proportionality, I urge Ministers to embrace AI. There are opportunities to use AI to triage incoming attacks and avoid duplication, for example, and a lot of streamlining of the system can be done in that area. On the flipside of AI, we must take very seriously the risk of cyber-attacks posed by agentic artificial intelligence. It appears that we reached an inflection point in November 2025, when Anthropic reported disrupting what it described as the first large-scale cyber-espionage campaign executed largely via agentic AI. We are likely to see much more of this. I would welcome the Minister saying in his concluding remarks what the Government intend to do to ensure that we keep up with this threat, because we are only in the foothills of the risk posed by agentic AI. Further to the point about the role of the public sector, 40% of incidents handled by the National Cyber Security Centre when I was the Minister responsible were from the public sector, so I question the exclusion of the public sector. I appreciate that the Government have announced a plan. I have not had a chance to look at it, but I can imagine what it contains broadly. The key thing is what stick is applied to public officials and Ministers, outside the core responsible Government Departments, to make sure that they take their responsibilities seriously, so I think some legislative proposals may be needed in that area. Similarly on budgets, again the core responsible Departments—the Cabinet Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—will prioritise cyber-security. I fear that other Departments may not, so there is a strong argument for ringfencing cyber-security budgets for all Departments so that money cannot be transferred to more pressing short-term problems, as has often been the case, particularly, for example, in the NHS. It is very important that we do not overlook the basics. It is very easy to talk about legislation or to talk in high-level terms about threats, but probably the single biggest thing we could do to deal with cyber-risks in this country is to make sure that every time every single business and private individual gets one of those annoying pings on their phone saying that they need to upgrade their software to the latest operating system—it is the same with their PCs, iPads and so on—they do so. That is done by providers, because they know that there is a cyber-risk, and there is a patch to address it. If the patch is applied immediately, that can have a huge effect on the resilience of the whole of society, and the NCSC constantly puts out that message. We need to look at our resilience in society as a whole when we have a major cyber-attack. We have had major cyber-attacks, but they have tended to be in just one sector, albeit with cascading effects, as with JLR. We have not yet had a whole of society cyber-attack—either one that flows out of control from a criminal attack, or a deliberate attack from a hostile state cascading widely across all of society—affecting our electricity, water supplies and so on. I fear that it is only a matter of time before that happens, and we need to look at the resilience of individuals, including the ability to have analogue systems such as battery-powered torches, rather than electric torches, and so on. I started the work on that as a Minister, and I think more needs to be done in that space. We also need to look at the question of emergency communications. It was certainly my experience that public sector broadcasters—such as, I think, the BBC—are not required to take emergency communications from the Government in such situations. I think that is a loophole that could be exposed in such a situation. On resilience more broadly, we are in the foothills of the impact of AI. We are going to see vast impacts on employment and how people lead meaningful lives as AI advances more and more rapidly. For the resilience of our society, this House needs to have a much wider debate—not on this Bill, but more generally—about how we address the epoch-changing challenges we are facing. In conclusion, I think this is a welcome piece of legislation and an important step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) correctly highlighted the very important challenges, and they will need to be addressed as this Bill passes through the House. I think it is an important step forward, but it is only one step, and once this legislation is enacted, we will need to be prepared to return to this issue again and again.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my neighbour. The Minister did not answer this point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) about the effect of the jobs tax on unemployment. In my constituency, I have met countless businesses that have laid off staff, or have shifted staff to being self-employed. Does he accept, particularly given the unemployment figures today, that there is a direct link between the jobs tax and higher unemployment?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, my hon. Friend is totally correct. Of course the welfare state should be there for those people in temporary difficulty, but it cannot be a lifestyle, which is what ends up happening.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The problem with that analysis is that many people on the same street will think to themselves, “I chose not to have another child because I could not afford to have another, but my neighbour is now able to have more children, paid for by the taxman through welfare.” That is the fundamental unfairness at the heart of this Budget announcement. Worse than that, this failure to grasp welfare reform risks neglecting a whole generation. Already, young workers’ prospects are under threat from artificial intelligence, and employment prospects are being hit by Labour’s jobs tax and labour market regulation, which is discouraging hiring. Now the message seems to emerge from the Government: “Don’t worry: abandon ambition. There is ever-higher welfare spending under Labour. That is the reason why you should vote for us.”

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. As we are going down memory lane, I cannot resist reminding him that when we came to power in 2010, we had a youth unemployment crisis. Youth unemployment plunged when we were in office; now, with Labour back in office, the Government have imposed a national insurance contribution tax and youth unemployment is soaring again. Is that not a damning indictment of Labour?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, then I must make some progress.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my position as chair of the United Arab Emirates all-party parliamentary group. It did not have to be this way. The roots of this Budget and its failure are in the last one. It began with the unnecessary delay and scaremongering before that Budget, which frightened consumers and scared off businesses from investment. Then, when the Budget was announced, the Chancellor made three key errors. She chose to do probably the worst thing for jobs and growth: she put up national insurance contributions. She chose to drive human and financial capital away from the United Kingdom through the abolition of the non-dom tax status, and she chose a totally unrealistically low level of fiscal headroom. By the time the Chancellor sat down, markets were already preparing for the next round of tax rises, and the sense that there would be tax rises only grew with the U-turn on welfare reforms. The problem is that the Government are making exactly the same mistake all over again—and there was a litany of leaks, culminating, extraordinarily, in the OBR publishing the entire content of the Chancellor’s Budget before she even stood up, which rendered the entire speech meaningless. This Budget makes a simple and clear choice: there will be higher welfare spending, paid for by higher taxes. For my constituents, that means higher income taxes, higher taxes on their savings, and higher taxes on their dividends. Further, in constituencies like mine, house prices have soared over the past 30-odd years to astronomical levels, and there is a real risk that older people in family homes that they bought for a very low price will have to scrimp and scrape to find several thousand pounds every year, just to stay in their family home, which they so love. That is a real problem that will emerge from this Budget, and I urge the Chancellor to look, at the very least, at ameliorating measures to stop older people having to sell their home to pay their council tax bills. Behind this decision lies a strategic choice, and we all know exactly what has happened. The Labour leadership has watched in fear as its vote haemorrhages to the left, and this Budget is all about shoring up Labour’s tax base. The taxes of the residents of Bushey, Radlett, Potters Bar and Borehamwood are being hiked to pay for higher welfare costs, in order to appease Labour’s Back Benchers.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Of course there will be the occasional person who falls on hard times, but the hon. Lady should try saying what she did to the many of my constituents who are unable to have more children. They took the choice not to have them, but that option is now there. There is an imbalance between the situation that my constituents faced and the approach taken on welfare. At a time when the United Kingdom is embracing higher taxes and an ever-greater role for the state, lower-tax dynamism abounds beyond Europe. We can see the US surging, with freer markets and a tech and energy bonanza. We need only look to the Gulf, where states like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia embracing tech, finance and alternative energy. A generation ago, this would have mattered less, but labour and capital are now highly mobile, and more and more people are voting with their feet. They are leaving the United Kingdom in their tens of thousands. This tide is washing the very brightest and best away from our shores, and I fear that once those people leave, it will be very hard to get them to come back. The sadness of all this is that the United Kingdom remains a wonderful country. It is a beacon of stability, and we have the rule of law, the English language, our time zone, great research universities and a highly talented workforce. Indeed, having criticised the Government a lot, I pay tribute to them for successfully concluding a number of free trade agreements, including with India and the United States, and I hope that others will follow, including with the Gulf Co-operation Council. At a time when other countries present challenges—whether we are talking about the security situation in China, the unpredictability of the United States or stagnation in Europe—the United Kingdom has a golden opportunity to be a magnet for investment from businesses and entrepreneurs around the world. However, we risk consigning ourselves to what a Scottish entrepreneur described to me a couple of days ago as a “why bother” economy. What he meant was that of course people are not going to disinvest, but they will not actively choose to invest in the United Kingdom, because we are not creating an environment that rewards risk-taking and entrepreneurship. There are a few simple steps that we could take to seize this moment, and I urge the Chancellor to take them and light the fire of competitiveness. First, instead of trying to drive away the wealthiest and biggest global investors, as we have done with the abolition of the non-dom status, we should welcome them and gain more revenue at the same time. One need only look at the Italian model; they have imposed a relatively high fee, but have in return exempted wealthy mobile people from paying further taxation. As a result, investment in Italy is surging, as is the number of wealthy people choosing to locate there, with all the opportunities that brings for growth and investment. Secondly, instead of obsessing about policing social media, we should be aggressively policing the sort of low-level crime that drives people away from locating in this country, whether it is phone snatching, shoplifting or the general sense that the streets of this country have become less safe than they were a few years ago. Thirdly, instead of clobbering entrepreneurs, wealth creators and hard-working Brits with ever-higher marginal rates, we should have confidence that lower marginal rates generate higher revenues in the long run and benefit absolutely everyone. Fourthly, and most importantly of all in relation to this Budget, instead of consigning a generation to welfare, we should aggressively reform the welfare state to create opportunities for all. It really is not too late for the Government to seize this opportunity, but sadly, I fear that only a change of Government, and a Conservative Government, will be able to deliver those things.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I genuinely congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I have always found him to be an honest and straightforward speaker in the House and he deserves his position. On the point about speculation, can he confirm reports that the Government are looking again at welfare? Surely he will agree with me that, in any process of fiscal consolidation, one must look to tax rises and to spending cuts. There has been a lot of reporting about there being further measures on welfare, so will there be further measures on welfare under consideration—yes or no?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), the Labour party denigrates wealthy individuals who choose to come to this country. However, it is about not just the tax that they provide, but the jobs and opportunities they create by investing in constituencies up and down the country. This country has prospered for hundreds of years by being open and welcoming to inward investment. If we lose that, we lose a key plank of the competitiveness and growth that have been associated with our economy.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Would my right hon. Friend agree that correcting this loss of market confidence demands decisive action from the Government at the Budget, and that that decisive action cannot be taken solely on the tax side? The tax side is what has driven us into this loop. We need decisive action on spending and particularly on welfare if we are to see some restoration of market confidence and get ourselves out of this rut.