Oliver Dowden MP: speeches

Speeches

• 31 Mar 2025 · Shoplifting · Hansard source

  More

  Many of my constituents are exasperated by the fact that the police are unable to turn up when there is shoplifting or a burglary, yet they were able to send six officers to get themselves involved in a dispute with a local school and to warn off local elected representatives from getting involved. Sadly, that misallocation of resources and unwarranted police overreach is not an isolated example. May I urge the Minister to avoid engaging in political point scoring and instead join me in sending a very clear message from both sides of this House that our expectation is that the police should be focused on solving real crimes and staying out of legitimate free expression and democratic debate?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister, for the benefit of the House, clarify how much of that uplift will be taken up by the increased national insurance contributions that have to be made by police forces as a result of Labour’s policy?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Public Confidence in Policing · Hansard source

  More

  Local volunteers in Potters Bar were left struggling on Remembrance Sunday to stop the traffic to allow the march to take place. They were told by the police that they lacked the resources and the power to stop the traffic, yet on the same day in neighbouring Essex the police managed to visit a journalist regarding a deleted tweet. Every weekend, vast amounts of resources pour into London for pro-Palestinian marches. Does the Home Secretary share the despair of my constituents at this allocation of resources, and will she provide guidance for next year’s Remembrance service, both on police powers and the responsibilities regarding those marches?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill because it is not an acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change, because it proposes a significant alteration to the composition of the House of Lords which should not be considered in isolation from other changes, having regard to the undertakings given by the then Government in 1999, because it drip-feeds changes that hinder proper scrutiny of measures that could change the relationship between the two Houses, because it risks unintended consequences, does not reflect the lack of political consensus on House of Lords reform and does not provide for full consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny which would give the opportunity to consider the case for overall reform, seek cross-party engagement on proposals, and review the implications of all proposals.” The British constitution is not codified. One might not choose to craft such a system if one were establishing a new country from scratch, but we are proud to be an old country. The checks and balances of the House of Lords—its tried and tested conventions—work. The House of Lords does not claim to be a democratic Chamber. That is the key point: this elected House has primacy. Of course, the British constitution does—and should—continue to evolve, but we should fix only what is broken and be cautious about rushing into change. Our evolution should start with questions of efficacy, not optics. We should be guided by the wisdom of past generations, and the continuity of history and tradition. As Edmund Burke wrote: “We have an inheritable crown, an inheritable peerage, and a House of Commons and a people inheriting privileges, franchises, and liberties from a long line of ancestors.” The Paymaster General has described the excepted peers as “out of step” with modern Britain. Like the Blair and Brown Governments, this Government seem obsessed with change for change’s sake. We have seen it all before. We have seen this rebranding spun to give the impression of progress: the Law Lords replaced with the Supreme Court; the Lord Chancellor’s Department aping the US-style Justice Department; even Her Majesty’s Stationery Office recast as the Office of Public Sector Information. At best, it is cosmetic; at worst, it risks irreversible damage. As we saw with the changes to the House of Lords’ judicial role, rushed constitutional change leads to unintended consequences. We should, therefore, proceed with caution.

• 25 Jul 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome that answer and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. An effective strategy must be underpinned by dedicated resources, which is why one of my final acts in the Cabinet Office was to announce that we would ringfence biological security spending across Government. Will he uphold that commitment, so that important resilience spending does not fall victim to day-to-day spending pressures?