Sir Oliver Dowden
MP for Hertsmere · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Many of my Jewish constituents have very grave concerns about the conduct of the current Israeli Government. However, Israel is the Jewish homeland, and I think many of them are concerned about the content of the statement, the highly political tone of the briefing around it and its timing before Israelis themselves can decide in an elect…”
“The problem is that the Argentinians can smell weakness because of our approach to the Iranians’ attacks on two British bases earlier this year.”
“I congratulate the First Secretary of State and welcome her to a very important role in government. I agree with a number of things that she said, particularly about strengthening the role of No. 10. However, there is a large gap in this statement on rewiring the state, and that is to do with civil service reform.”
“When I was in government we conducted one of the largest exercises, Exercise Mighty Oak, which involved more than 4,000 people testing the effect of a power outage. That exercise demonstrated that it cascaded very rapidly and that it very rapidly affected water supply, transport and other public services.”
“Does the Minister agree that a big part of the leadership malaise outlined in this report can be attributed to the lack of clarity from this place and the Government about what we expect of the police? While this report is welcome, the definition of police leadership in paragraph 90 runs to almost two pages.”
“I am afraid we saw exactly that this weekend in the extraordinary scenes at the Pride march, where there was explicit antisemitism and people directly attacking Jews while the police stood back and watched. We have to achieve a cultural change. Does the Minister agree with those objectives?”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Sir Oliver Dowden, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 12.
“This all leads to the core question before the House, which I have very little time to address, but I will try to make my point succinctly. There is undoubtedly a case for regulation. The pyramid is not working, with £100 million for TV rights at the bottom of the premier league as opposed to £4 million at the top of the EFL. We need to address that—it is not sustainable. Likewise, the movement from the national league to the EFL is something that we need to expand, as exemplified by the 3UP campaign. However, before we go down this path, we should look at how circumstances have changed in the past year. Look at the change in the global investment environment, principally as a result of instability in the US, and at the national insurance hike faced by every club up and down the country.”
“We have Manchester City, which is backed by the Abu Dhabi United Group and which has posted record revenues of more than £700 million and profits of £73 million based on solid equity, not risky leverage. That is exactly the sort of leverage that is demanded. Likewise, Newcastle United’s new ownership, led by the Public Investment Fund, has brought more than £300 million of fresh investment without debt, so we have a thriving team and jobs created, with silverware returned. Beyond the premier league, we have seen what the injection of funds at Wrexham has done for its extraordinary ascent through the league. And at Tottenham Hotspur, their fabulous stadium is now expanding to include things like the Eubank-Benn masterclass at the weekend.”
“I did not hesitate to act when English football was threatened by the rapacious greed of the proposed European super league, which would have deracinated six of our greatest clubs. It is in that resistance to the ESL that the roots of this Bill lie. The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, threatened a “legislative bomb”, which resulted in us bringing forward the governance review led by my excellent former colleague, Dame Tracey Crouch. In our consideration of this legislation, I caution that English football survives on cut-throat competition in which the rewards for victory are high and the costs of failure are equally high. It is also dependent on significant levels of global investment. Well-structured investment is not a threat to English football: it is one of its great strengths. I could list many examples.”
“I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Wherever I have been in the world, whether it is in Hertsmere or at the United Nations, I am always asked two questions: “When did you meet the late Queen?” and “Which football team do you support?” Such is the strength and reach of English football. As I have said to this House before, English football is a cherished cultural and soft power that ranks alongside our greatest museums, galleries and stately homes. Indeed, I saw that again this Friday at my brilliant local club, Boreham Wood FC, led by the indefatigable Danny Hunter. Three generations of his family have sustained that club, sustaining community life, providing education, nurturing us through covid and facilitating the next generation of stars to rise all the way to the top of the premier league.”
“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?”
“Following the Government’s regrettable decision not to fund Watford general hospital’s refurbishment in this Parliament, providing community care facilities in a town such as Borehamwood in my constituency—a significant town without its own dedicated facilities—is more important than ever. Will the Secretary of State undertake to use his offices to urge the ICB and others to get their act together so that we can finally have those facilities in Borehamwood?”
“The moment may have passed somewhat, but I think my point is still apposite enough to make. If there are any apologies to go round, they should come from the Labour party. In every single election campaign in which I have been involved for at least the past 25 years, the Labour party has run a scare story about the Conservatives scrapping the winter fuel payment, and the moment they get into office, what is the very first thing they do? They remove the winter fuel payment. That is what has upset so many of my constituents so much.”
“Does the Secretary of State share my concern about reports of persistent misconduct by Drax, regarding cutting down old-growth forest and burning it at its power station? To be clear, this is a company that chops down pristine forest, ships it halfway across the world to burn it in the United Kingdom and claims that it is sustainable. Will he look again at the large amounts of subsidies that have been approved by this Government for that company?”
“Q8. St Hilda’s girls school looks set to join Immanuel Jewish prep as the second school in Bushey alone forced to close because of Labour’s VAT hike. That is a double hit to aspirations—first, to those of the parents, many of whom are not wealthy and who have described the significant sacrifices they have made to send their children to these schools; and secondly, it affects the excellent local state schools, including the one that I attended, which simply do not have the places, meaning that this policy will not even save money. May I therefore urge the Prime Minister, even at this late stage, to look again at the failures of this policy?”
“T9. Attracting high net worth individuals to spend more time in the United Kingdom drives jobs, growth and, crucially, tax revenues, but unfortunately the opposite is happening in the UK right now. Will the Chancellor use the spring statement to look at the statutory residence test and, in particular, the ties rules to see whether we can incentivise people to spend more time in the UK, not the other way around?”
“My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The attitude of the Government of the United States is absolutely central. There has been a profound change in the stance taken by the Government of the United States, with the election of the new President. Instead of embracing that and seeing it as an opportunity, the Labour party seems determined to railroad through a deal that does not, it appears, command the support of the Government of the United States. It is a preposterous position to be in.”
“This issue of sovereignty is crucial. First, it is not about restoring sovereignty to Mauritius; Mauritius never had sovereignty in the first place. Moreover, the moment at which the United Kingdom Government concede the point of sovereignty, all else is lost in the negotiation; we will have not a leg to stand on. So clarity on this point is essential.”
“I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that people want their public services delivered efficiently and effectively. To that end, what discussions have he and his Department had with the Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk in the United States about how we can harness the power of artificial intelligence to deliver better services, and scrutinise Government spending and datasets, to eliminate waste and inefficiency?”
“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?”
“I welcome the Government’s conversion on a third runway at Heathrow. The sort of connectivity that that enables, particularly with fast-growing economies in Asia and the Gulf, is essential to growth. However, what assurance can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury give the House that this project will not subsequently be stymied by an absolutist approach driven by ideology towards carbon emissions, which will drive it into the ground? We have been down this path before.”
“Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose funding the reported £9 billion bill to the Mauritians for the continued use of Diego Garcia through higher taxes, more borrowing or spending cuts?”
“Every Friday since 7 October, many people have gathered in Borehamwood, in the heart of my constituency, with a simple message: “Bring them home.” May I urge the Foreign Secretary to use all the diplomatic efforts of His Majesty’s Government to bring that vision to bear? The first thing to do is to secure agreement from the Israeli Cabinet. As he says, the deal could go wrong at each stage of the process. Can we keep a focus on bringing the hostages home? If we have an enduring ceasefire, as we all hope and pray, will he update the House on the role that our friends and allies in the Gulf states can play in rebuilding Gaza? That will be crucial in ensuring that peace endures.”
“The Minister keeps telling the House that negotiations with Mauritius have been going on for two years. Will he explain to the House why he is so reluctant to extend those negotiations by just one week until the Trump Administration take office? They may take a very different view of the negotiations from that of the Biden Administration.”
“I did not realise you had grouped them, Mr Speaker. Forgive me—a schoolboy error. What advice would the Minister give struggling businesses in my constituency who are trying to work out how to absorb Labour’s national insurance hike? Would he advise them to increase their prices, to squeeze wages or to cut investment, and can he explain to those businesses how that fits with the Government’s promises to increase growth?”
“I know that the Minister is a man of considerable integrity, so can he be honest with my constituents about the fact that the combination of mandatory targets, a massive increase in those mandatory targets and the fig leaf of the grey belt policy means that in a constituency like mine, which is almost entirely green belt, apart from that which is developed on, there will be massive new development, an expansion of London sprawl and a change in the character of the area forever?”
“If the intention of the Government is that the moves should happen at natural transition points, why did they decide to impose the change from January? Whatever one’s views on the merits of the policy, that is not really fair on the parents affected. Indeed, one could say it is cruel.”
“Further to the excellent intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), that is exactly what happens with schools in my constituency. Haberdashers’ school partners with 1,400 state school pupils every single week. When the Minister talks about finding efficiencies, these are exactly the sorts of programmes that will suffer. There is no other place for those students to go if they leave private schools in my constituency, so on both counts everyone is worse off. That is one of the inequities of the policy.”
“My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The Government’s impact assessment also assumes that the loss of places will be spread uniformly across the country, which will not be the case. In many constituencies, particularly those represented by Conservatives, a large number of students are at private schools, and the loss of those places will have a significant impact on local schools where there are not the places to absorb them.”
“Over the weekend, Immanuel prep in my constituency announced it was closing, citing VAT on school fees and other damaging Labour policies. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the damage that will do to Jewish children growing up in my constituency and the surrounding area, who will be deprived of access to a Jewish education, which they richly deserve?”
“I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I have a great deal of sympathy for the arguments she is making. However, we have seen, time and again, excessive judicial activism taking the words in this House and expanding their meaning into places we had not foreseen. What reassurances can she give that the words in her Bill will be respected by the judiciary and that we will not find ourselves in a decade’s time in a totally different place that this House did not intend?”
“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?”
“Whatever reservations one may have about the conduct of the conflict in Gaza, there are two fundamental principles: first, Netanyahu is a democratically elected leader of a sovereign state; and secondly, that state is conducting a legitimate war of self-defence. The Minister acknowledges those facts, but does he not appreciate how this ruling is seen by many of my constituents as an affront to those principles?”
“The green belt was designed precisely to stop soulless urban sprawl overtaking villages and towns such as Borehamwood, Potters Bar, Cuffley, Bushey and other places in my constituency, yet the targets imposed on those areas by the Labour Government render its protections meaningless. Will the Leader of the House find time for us to discuss protection of the green belt before Labour’s policies do to the countryside exactly what socialist policies did up and down the country in the 1960s and 1970s?”
“Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster provide an update on the current situation for British nationals in Lebanon, including the measures being taken to ensure their safety? Are there any plans for further evacuations, given the ongoing instability in that region?”
“I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for that answer. May I echo from the Opposition Benches that the correct approach for British nationals is to leave now, rather than to rely on the Government to take further steps for them? However, in the event that the situation deteriorates further, what contingency plans do the Government have in place to ensure the swift and safe evacuation of British nationals, particularly in high-risk areas?”
“I join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to the bravery of Sir Chris Hoy—he truly is an inspiration to us all. I also echo her comments about the train crash in Powys. What is the Deputy Prime Minister’s definition of working people?”
“The Deputy Prime Minister stood on a manifesto promising not to raise taxes on working people. It now appears that she cannot even define who working people are, so I will give her another go. There are 5 million small business owners in this country; are they working people?”
“I think the whole House will have heard the Deputy Prime Minister disregard 5 million hard-working small business owners. These are the publicans, the shopkeepers, the family running a local café. None of those count as working people to her. Labour gave a clear commitment not to raise national insurance. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has given its view on this. It says that raising employer national insurance is “a tax…on working people.” Even the Chancellor said that raising employer national insurance was a “jobs tax” that will “make each new recruit more expensive and increase the costs to business”. So does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the IFS and her own Chancellor?”
“I think we can take it from that answer that the Deputy Prime Minister does not agree with the IFS, and I suppose it should not come as a surprise that she does not agree with her Chancellor, but does she agree with this: “Working people will pay…when employers pass on the hike in national insurance”? Those are her words, so does she at least agree with herself?”
“The Deputy Prime Minister mentions her policy. Let us be clear: it is a £5 billion hit to the British economy, and that is her own assessment. Following these answers, there will be millions of working people even more worried about the tax rises coming their way in next week’s Budget. However, as this is our last exchange across the Dispatch Box, I would like to turn to somebody I hope we can all agree is a hard-working person—His Majesty the King. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in sending him best wishes ahead of the Commonwealth summit in Samoa? In particular, will she confirm that this Government recognise the unique role played by the Commonwealth, and will she commit to deepening that relationship, so that, under His Majesty’s leadership, we build upon possibly the greatest legacy of the late Queen?”
“I thank the right hon. Lady for that answer. Our Commonwealth family is brought together by historical and cultural ties—indeed, much like the pair of us. [Interruption.] I will resist the temptation to replicate that. As we look to the Commonwealth’s future, we have the opportunity to deepen our economic relationship. Will she assure the House that the Prime Minister will use the summit to continue the work, begun by the last Government, of building deeper economic ties with our Commonwealth friends and allies?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I join the Government in paying tribute to the hereditary peers. The argument that I will elucidate in my speech, as set out in the amendment, is that if this Government are committed to reform of the upper House, they should consider all the consequences of that reform, and this House, and the other place, should have ample opportunity to consider it properly.”
“As we have seen in the debate so far, there is a range of views on both sides of the House about how we should proceed with reform. The argument that I am making is that this House should have the opportunity to consider all the changes together in the round before we rush ahead with constitutional change for the sake of virtue signalling and optics rather than what suits the needs of the nation.”
“There is also the Human Rights Act 1998, which, in departing from Britain’s common-law tradition, further expanded judicial review, undermining the very laws made by this Parliament and dragging the courts into answering political questions that should be a matter for the legislature. The same applies to Tony Blair’s successive surrenders to EU treaties. Those Acts created new problems for an old country, and this Bill risks doing exactly the same.”
“I will make some progress and then I will give way. Instead of proceeding with caution, the Government have done precisely the opposite. The Bill has had no pre-legislative scrutiny, no Joint Committee and no cross-party engagement. Indeed, Labour Ministers have explicitly refused to consult on the removal of excepted peers. All that forms a pattern with Labour’s past constitutional tinkering. We have the Equality Act 2010, which both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary have said in recent months is too complicated and needs changing.”
“I am strongly of the view that we should consider all these things in the round. There is merit here—that is why we are proposing a reasoned amendment—but the risk of proceeding in a rushed fashion is that we come to regret it, as we have on many previous occasions.”
“I will make some progress and then I will give way. In 1999, Baroness Jay, the then Leader of the House of Lords, said that a partly reformed Lords with only excepted hereditaries remaining would be “more legitimate, because its members have earned their places” and would have more authority. That was termed the Jay doctrine at the time. If the excepted peers go, what other conventions are at risk of change—the Salisbury convention, or the restraint against vetoing secondary legislation? The lack of consultation and scrutiny, and the Government’s piecemeal approach to reform, has meant such questions have the potential to be reopened.”
“I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the reforms were introduced in 1999. By my calculation, the Labour party was in power for another 11 years and did precisely nothing further. I will come to this point in a moment, but the reason the hereditaries remained in the House of Lords in 1999 was to ensure that all these things were considered at the same time. The Government are breaking a principle that they agreed to previously.”
“Lord Mandelson described the plan as a “multi-layered cake…barely been put in the oven yet, let alone fully baked.” Lord Adonis observed that within Labour, “there is no consensus on reform” and that it will be “difficult and controversial.” Even the current leader of the Lords, Baroness Smith, admitted this year that an elected Chamber risked “losing the primacy of the Commons.” Therein lies the dilemma for the Labour party and its new-found Commons majority. Perhaps Labour Ministers are starting to realise that Lords reform is challenging and difficult.”
“I will make some progress, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will give way. We should not be surprised that the Labour Government have only introduced this short Bill because they have no clear plans for wider Lords reform. In 2022, the Prime Minister endorsed Gordon Brown’s plans for an assembly of the nations and regions, but now that has been kicked into the long grass. Labour grandees such as Lord Blunkett have warned it risks mirroring “gridlock” too often seen in the United States.”
“As they cannot agree on what to do, the Prime Minister has gone for this chipolata of a Bill, the mantra of change serving as a tiny fig leaf to cover his embarrassment. The emperor has no clothes—perhaps other than from Lord Alli.”