Oliver Dowden MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Separatism makes a country weaker, and there is no doubt that our enemies will encourage it. The example that he cited, which I also saw, is very telling of exactly that.

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

  More

  I totally agree with the hon. Member, and that is why we Opposition Members support the legislation. On AI, we can all see these challenges coming. We need to work cross-party and support the Government in finding ways to address them, because this is essentially the challenge of our age. Of course, AI will be able to strengthen our defences, but we should not be naive; the same tool that helps a defender to patch faster will of course also enable an attacker to breach faster. We have seen this with hostile states. Russia has already integrated cyber-sabotage, propaganda and deniable proxy activity into its campaign against the west. The same can be said for North Korea, which has not been touched on much in this debate, and Iran.

• 20 May 2026 · Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  Given the recent rapid advances of frontier AI models in areas such as identifying software vulnerabilities, and in rapid testing for those vulnerabilities in a very sophisticated way, what engagement do the Government have with those frontier companies, and particularly Anthropic? Are the Government considering making changes to the carried-over Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to address these very real vulnerabilities?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I think the Prime Minister owes it to the House to tell us what Sir Olly Robbins’s response to him was when he said he had overruled that advice. In my experience, senior officials are very keen to deliver on the wishes of Ministers, particularly a newly elected Prime Minister. My concern is that implicitly, as other Members have said, Sir Olly Robbins was responding to a desire from the Prime Minister, because it was perfectly clear in all the newspapers that there were allegations about Peter Mandelson, but the Prime Minister decided to proceed anyway. The official wished to deliver on the desire of the Minister, and that is why he overruled the advice. I fear that it gave the Prime Minister a degree of plausible deniability.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I may be at risk of making myself fantastically unpopular, but I think I can do so having no prospect whatsoever of reaching ministerial office again. Although I am perfectly willing to admit that the previous Government did not do this, does the Paymaster General agree that a Government will at some point have to reconsider the constant freezing of the ministerial salary? It has to increase, or we will get to the point of there being no meaningful reward for ministerial office, which I think could have a detrimental impact on the calibre of people we can attract over the long term. He is being very bold on this, so why not be bold with ministerial salaries?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  And on the substance of my question?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has made frequent reference to the figure of 120 Ministers. Further to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), why not legislate to make that a fixed cap on the number of Ministers? In my experience of advising many Ministers and being involved in many reshuffles, there is always an enormous temptation just to squeeze one more in, and then another. So although there may be a cap of 120 Ministers, there could be some new brief and, before we know it, we will have 125 Ministers in total, with 120 salaried and five unpaid, and we will be back where we started. If the Minister wishes to gain the consent of the House of Commons for increasing the number of salaried posts—and he makes a convincing argument for doing so—why not guard against that risk by introducing an absolute cap on the number of Ministers?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  For centuries, the United Kingdom has been willing to commit its naval resources to defend free movement on the seas. Does the Minister agree that now is another such occasion when we should do so, and that if we fail to do so, we will pay the price here in higher oil prices and overseas in terms of the perception of the United Kingdom being willing to stand up for the interests of its friends and allies in the Gulf? Furthermore, can he assure the House that this will be considered by the Government as a totally separate question from the United Kingdom’s participation in Operation Epic Fury?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making some very important points. There is a more fundamental point about public perception, which he may come on to in a moment. If we pass this legislation at a time when confidence in this place and in conventional politics is at an exceedingly low ebb, we will be sending a signal to people that this place does not trust 12 good men and true to make decisions, and, in fact, that we want to take that decision away from them. Does he agree that that will further erode confidence in conventional mainstream politics?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I genuinely have respect for the Minister, as he knows, but I am very confused as to the Government’s position. He will know from his time in the Foreign Office that one of the principal issues to which he refers is the fact that the previous US Administration was not comfortable with the disputed status of this territory under international law, but it is now clear that the current President of the United States has no such concerns or qualms. Given those circumstances, why are we continuing to burn capital with the current Administration, rather than saying, “Let’s put this whole thing on hold and look for a solution that might work better for both the United States Government and the interests of the United Kingdom”?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  The point here is not about impugning the integrity of the Cabinet Secretary; the point is about confidence in this House. The temperature in the House seems to be that most people feel that involving the ISC will give both this House and, more importantly, the public confidence in the process. It sounds as if the Minister is sympathetic to that point, so will he confirm that he is sympathetic to it, and that he will be making the case to Downing Street for that tweak?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  At the heart of what we are talking about is this. Do we accept the amendment from the Government about “national security or international relations”? My hon. Friend and I have both served in the Cabinet Office and I am sure that he shares my sympathy with the need to protect national security. However, there is a vast difference between protecting national security—for example, in direct intelligence reports from agents on the ground or intercept—and subjective judgments made about things that may be embarrassing for national security or international relations. That is why the Leader of the Opposition was precisely correct in saying that we need some independent mechanism. Why on earth can we not agree that the Intelligence and Security Committee should look at each of the exemptions? If it feels they pass the threshold, that is fine and we will accept that, because we need to protect national security—but it cannot be to spare the Labour party’s blushes.

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Today is UAE National Day, marking 54 years since its full independence. In that time, it has become one of our nation’s staunchest allies and a key investor, benefiting constituencies up and down the country. Will the Minister join me, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, in congratulating the UAE and recommitting to this key strategic relationship?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I despair at many aspects of the conduct of the Netanyahu Government and the suffering of Gazan civilians. However, I have grave reservations about the timing of this unilateral recognition of the state of Palestine, because I fear it will allow Hamas to claim that the vile massacres of 7 October have somehow succeeded. This concern is shared by many of my constituents. What reassurance can the Foreign Secretary give about the choice of timing and the signal that it sends?