Anneliese Dodds
MP for Oxford East · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“Oxford is a great place to visit, and I hope that many Members will enjoy coming to my great city. Many tourists agree with me, and £1 in every £6 spent in the city centre is spent by a visitor. However, many local residents and businesses, while they welcome tourism, do recognise that it causes additional costs.”
“I am very grateful to the Minister. The Government have been pushing for more use of medical examiners and CT scans where they are appropriate, but the reality is that many families are still experiencing delays and disruption at an extraordinarily traumatic time.”
“Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) for securing this debate, and to all hon. Members here for doing exactly what my hon.”
“We have already had a bit of a discussion about the involvement of the international community. It is important to underline that what both the SAF and the RSF are doing—forcing non-governmental organisations to register with them and saying, effectively, that they are not allowed to provide lifesaving support to the other side—is obvious…”
“Secondly, since we last discussed the issue in the House, there has been an even greater use of drones in Sudan, including double-tap attacks in which, following one attack, those trying to rescue the injured are killed too. That is being done by not just one belligerent but all of them.”
“It is good to hear that colleagues met some of those refugees in Egypt; I met some of them in Chad. Their horrific stories will never leave me. I want to focus my remarks on some concerning recent developments as it is important to put them on the record.”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Anneliese Dodds, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“Madam Deputy Speaker, since I have been in the Chamber, I have received the truly awful news that three people died last night in a fire in Bicester, including two members of the Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has had to leave the Chamber to liaise with those on the ground and we both want to take this opportunity, if we may, to convey our deep sorrow for and solidarity with the families of those who have died, and our fervent and heartfelt best wishes to the two firefighters who remain in a serious condition. We are grateful for their heroism and that of their colleagues when, as ever, they ran towards danger to serve us all. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I rise to speak in favour of new clause 16 and amendment 14, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak.”
“I personally believe that it does. I have heard countless times the phrase, “I do not want to be a burden.” I know Members will come to different conclusions about whether it is sufficiently excluded by the Bill. I believe it needs to be on the face of the Bill, so that we can ensure that it is out of scope.”
“I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe it is exactly those individuals who would be more likely to be subject to coercion by others, and I am afraid the evidence does indicate that. Sadly, we can see it in the experience of our courts, which have dealt with so-called mercy killings. I appreciate that many Members in this Chamber would not want that example to be used in the context of this discussion—of course, we are talking about something very different from those court cases. None the less, I believe it is instructive that in those cases, highly trained legal professionals have often described the actions, particularly those of former partners, as motivated by compassion, but when the circumstances have been investigated in detail, there has been substantial evidence of coercion and abuse.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I believe the Bill has been substantially improved through the many amendments that she and others have tabled. I know that these issues were discussed in detail in Committee, but I have to be honest: sadly, the prospect of a prosecution has often not been sufficient to prevent abuse. I note that in the discussions in Committee, a number of medical professionals mentioned that they often have to assess whether coercion has taken place and that they are confident in that assessment, but there is a huge amount of contestation around whether that confidence is rightly placed or otherwise.”
“Yes, I do share my hon. Friend’s concern in that regard. Sadly, we all know how perpetrators of coercion operate. They will often school the subject of their coercion in how to respond to questioning, to try to hide what they are doing from others. That is a concern.”
“I very much appreciate my hon. Friend’s efforts, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, to ensure that these matters were covered in Committee. Sadly, because of the patterns of behaviour that we see time and again with those who have been subject to coercion, I do not believe that the safeguards go far enough. That is my assessment, and I know that other Members will come to a different view.”
“I will make some progress, because I know others wish to speak. I want to speak briefly about subsection (1)(b) of new clause 16, which relates to mental disorder. Colleagues will dispute whether analogies are appropriate, but it is important that the House is aware—this was covered in Committee—that in the Netherlands, which of course has a different regime from the one proposed in the Bill, two cases involving psychiatric suffering were subject to assisted dying in 2010; in 2023, that figure was 138. That is a very substantial increase. I understand that, as was said earlier, it is a completely different set of circumstances in the Dutch case, but I am concerned that there is some confusion about the scope of the mental capacity provisions in the Bill.”
“The reality is that those subject to a number of mental disorders—including, sadly, eating disorders—may be highly intelligent and may well be able to carry out many logical procedures to assess information, but their evaluation of the value of their future life and their assessment of the value of bodily control, in relation to other factors, are different from those of someone who is not ill. I believe that issue has not been fully understood.”
“I agree that the Bill has been improved, but there is a difference between mental capacity, at least as assessed by medical professionals, and the presence of mental disorder. I know the Committee examined that subject at length. It was very clear from the discussion in Committee that it anticipated that elements such as being able to assess information and make judgments between alternatives would be covered by the mental capacity provisions—but the evaluation of those alternatives, which can be impacted by mental disorder, is not part of that process.”
“I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 16 and amendment 14. Above all, I hope we can continue this important discussion, which is critical for so many of our constituents.”
“I am aware of what my hon. Friend quite rightly refers to. Of course, any such condition would have to be coterminous with a terminal illness, but we know—the Committee thrashed this out for a long period—that depression is often present at the same time as a diagnosis of terminal illness. We also know that concepts such as “terminal anorexia” have started to be used in certain contexts. That unfortunately suggests that, despite the many protestations of those who understandably support the Bill, there is the possibility that those subject to eating disorders will be pulled within its scope. I am very pleased that amendment 14 would rule that out—it is important that it does so. It is critical that this Chamber sends that message too, given the potential confusion about scope.”
“My right hon. Friend has been passionate about the beautiful game for many years, and I am delighted that she is ensuring the Bill will be passed and make a difference for fans. One huge problem for fans has been their club getting trapped with an unsuitable, unsustainable and extremely expensive stadium because of goings-on at the club. We have that with Oxford United now. Does she agree that the Bill will help to stop that kind of situation, and that Oxford United must be allowed to move to the Triangle as soon as possible?”
“Workers at BMW Cowley have made clear to me their determination to play their part in a jobs-rich transition to net zero. Can my right hon. Friend explain how these changes will benefit BMW Cowley specifically, given its significance for my constituency and for UK manufacturing as a whole?”
“I have stood opposite the spokesperson for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), many times and engaged in the rough and tumble of political debate. It is not part of the rough and tumble of political debate to seek to justify the detention and deportation of fellow Members of this House. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the position taken by Opposition Front Benchers poses a risk to all of us as parliamentarians?”
“Workers at BMW at Cowley are deeply concerned by the recent news. BMW is right that a trade war would have no benefits. The Secretary of State is right to engage calmly with his US counterparts, but what discussions has he had with his EU counterparts, given how integrated our automotive sector is with that of EU countries?”
“Finally, we must work more closely with others seeking to protect their democracies, from Helsinki to Rio, Tallinn to Ottawa, and Chisinau to Berlin. In that vein, paralleling the Prime Minister’s push for a UK-EU defence partnership, we surely also need a UK-EU structured dialogue on digital policy and the defence of our democracies. In conclusion, I remain grateful to the Prime Minister and my party for providing me with eight months where I could seek to serve my country as a Minister of State. That was only possible because my constituents in Oxford East afforded me, through their free choice, the opportunity to represent them. Voters’ free choice, taken for granted so often in our country but so precious, is what is ultimately at risk if we fail to defend our democracy.”
“Secondly, our new legislative regime, although welcome, relies on an antiquated separation of large and small platforms. Last summer showed how the far right often switch from Telegram to YouTube to Rumble, and to other platforms large and small. When they spread disinformation, they do not keep it only on large platforms, so regulators should be prepared to act on small platforms, too. Thirdly, the new regime was created when the major complaint against platforms was that they were failing to heed their own rules. Now, powerful platform owners are ditching rules and firing compliance officers, and are themselves pumping out disinformation. There are no minimum standards in the new regime for platforms’ terms of service. I urge the Government to look again at that, with the care that I know the Minister always displays.”
“Lady that we lack tools to deal decisively with the growth in disinformation. The Online Safety Act does includes measures to protect content of democratic importance, but without a clear definition of that content, and with Ofcom’s advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation apparently not having met yet, that must be remedied speedily, given that over half of people now receive news through social media, and that rises to 82% of young people. Recommender algorithms, as she said, privilege engagement above all else, and extreme content engages more. I urge the Government to consider including independent audits of recommender algorithms, as contained in the EU’s Digital Services Act but not in our Online Safety Act.”
“Considerable progress is being made to defend democracy by the new Government, through: the taskforce of that name; the joint election security and preparedness unit; the foreign influence registration scheme that was released a couple of days ago; the Speaker’s Conference focused particularly on the safety of candidates; and the new ban on the creation, as well as the sharing, of sexually explicit deepfakes, whether they are focused on politicians or other victims. But attempts to degrade our democracy have involved actors from states that are not classified as hostile, and they have taken place outside election times, too. Policy must deal not with how things were 10 years ago, but with the reality of an online world that is having huge offline consequences. First, I agree with the hon.”
“None of us can forget the appalling scenes when racist thugs set fire to hotels knowing that people remained inside, and all in the name of three poor beautiful little girls—may they rest in peace. The policing and criminal justice response was swift, and I commend the Government for that, but in this case and others the influence of social media has not been fully digested, let alone acted upon. There are many other canaries choking down the coalmine, not least due to the growth and impact of violent online misogyny. Here I commend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) not just for her steadfast campaigning, but for the fact that even as she has received such appalling abuse herself, she continues to stand for women and girls. I stand in solidarity with her, as should all Members in this Chamber.”
“From Turkey to Somalia, people are desperate for democracy, stability and economic growth. In supporting them, we also support our country’s security. I therefore regret that, on top of the huge cut to official development assistance that led to my resignation, the shift to a cash basis may limit resources further. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to work closely with other countries to bridge some of that gap, but it must include radical action to tackle indebtedness, increase financial guarantees, protect lifesaving health services, and to support and reform multilateral bodies as they come under attack from autocrats. I believe that we need the same strategic approach—not tactical—when it comes to the protection of our democracy. Last summer saw the worst racist riots in our country since the second world war.”
“There is no muscle memory in Government, or indeed in politics, for the instability we are currently seeing, and as democracy backslides globally, instability is the new normal. It demands a strategic, not tactical, response. Economically, I believe, as I set out in my letter, that we must be prepared to reassess shibboleths, whether on the fiscal rules, as Germany has done, or on taxation, especially when the very best-off are seeing so little impact on their wellbeing from the economic headwinds. In addition, we must work with our allies—particularly in Europe but also beyond—to build our resilience on defence production and exports, with productivity growth hammered by post-Brexit impediments to trade and now, as we have heard this morning, with US-imposed tariffs.”
“I rise from the Back Benches for the first time in many years, having resigned from my position as Minister for Development and for Women and Equalities. The view is “much better from here”, as the late, great Robin Cook said, but I do deeply regret that I could not continue to serve in the Government for which I campaigned for so long. I wish my successors, Baroness Chapman and Baroness Smith, all the very best. I will not try their patience—or indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker—by reprising the contents of my resignation letter, but I do want to explain why I have chosen to break my silence during this debate. The new Government entered office at a time of unprecedented geopolitical and economic flux.”
“My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She talks about the considerable parliamentary interest in this issue; we know there is considerable interest among the public too, because of the number of signatures on Mr Stone’s petition. Is she also aware that survey evidence has indicated that over three quarters of those polled do not want foreign nationals not registered to vote here to be able to donate to our political parties? As a result, does she agree that we need to see legislative change?”
“I note that, in his helpful statement released two days ago, my hon. Friend made it very clear that core to the Government’s approach is ensuring that there is a starting point, which is “to support and empower local leaders and to respect their knowledge, expertise and insight.” —[ Official Report , 24 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 25WS.] That listening approach was also in evidence in the comments that he made to the District Councils’ Network conference, where he stated clearly that the 500,000 figure was potentially an “average”. Does he agree that the clarity that bids of significantly below 500,000 are acceptable is useful for smaller cities that are engines of economic and housing growth but which have populations significantly below the 500,000 mark?”
“My hon. Friend is talking very eloquently about history and the need for grassroots history to be reflected. Does he agree that there has been a strong history of co-operation and co-operatives in the middle east? Is he aware of the fact that the British Co-operative Group has been working hard, with the Co-operative party, on tangible measures to support peace and economic development, including the Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom peace village? Do we need to see more of these initiatives in the future, and can the fund be a way of achieving that?”
“My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I can forgive her for being from Reading—at least she is not from Swindon. Oxford United, which I was grateful that she mentioned, must be able to move out of the Kassam stadium for which it is charged unviable rent, despite lacking a fourth stand and many other problems. Does she agree that the club’s exciting proposals for a new stadium in Kidlington must go forward, but that future governance models need to stop previous owners from entrapping clubs in unviable and unsustainable stadiums?”
“I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for bringing this Opposition debate to the House. As she knows, for over 50 years the UK-US base on Diego Garcia has been a bulwark in the Indo-Pacific, supporting critical missions against terrorists, countering hostile states and keeping us, and the rest of the world, safe. This Government are committed to protecting our base, protecting our position and capabilities in the Indian ocean, and protecting national security. The deal that we have negotiated achieves all of those goals. It is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect our country’s security, which is the first duty of any Government. It is this Government who are delivering on that and not ducking questions, as the right hon. Lady well knows.”
“I will make progress and then I will be very happy to take interventions. The status quo is not sustainable. It imperils UK and US strategic interests. A deal, as the right hon. Lady knows, is necessary. This deal will ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of the base on Diego Garcia, well into the next century. It will cement UK and US presence in the Indo-Pacific for generations to come. I did not hear a single suggestion in the right hon. Lady’s lengthy speech about how she would secure that base at all. Base operations have been under increasing threat for decades— [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Lady knows that and many Members on the Conservative Benches also know it.”
“Claims that there were no legal necessities to negotiate are absolutely wrong; they misunderstand the legal jeopardy and immediate operational challenges that the base faces. [Interruption.] I will come on to that; I am well aware of that. Ever since the legal certainty of the base was called into doubt, its ability to operate in practical terms, as it should be able to operate, given that it is such a critical facility, has been undermined. I know that the right hon. Lady is aware of that.”
“The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that of course we know about that ICJ carve-out in relation to the Commonwealth. That is common knowledge. I find it slightly strange that he is presenting that as something that the House is not aware of—that is very peculiar indeed. He would have done well to wait for the rest of what I was going to say in relation to legal jeopardy, because this is by no means—”
“That is because not a single one of those arbitrators and judges have expressed support for the UK claim about sovereignty. That lack of legal certainty would have real-world impacts on base operations and create space for our enemies. Some of those impacts would be on simple but crucial things, such as securing contractors and getting overflight clearances. I regret that the Opposition said not a single word about the issue of securing contractors and getting overflight clearances. There were other matters that they did not talk about.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me explain to Conservative Members, because I feel they are perhaps unaware of the fact that the ICJ advisory opinion is simply the most eye-catching of a huge number of legal concerns around the present situation. Those who had the genuine security of that base at the front of their minds would be determined to secure its future. Without a deal, it is inevitable that Mauritius would pursue a legally binding judgment against UK sovereignty. Since 2015, 28 international judges and arbitrators have expressed views on the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago. [ Interruption. ] Conservative Members are keen to shout. I wonder if they can tell me how many have agreed with the UK’s position. They are very quiet.”
“That is what is in our strategic defence interest, which the shadow Foreign Secretary mentioned. Without a negotiated solution—”
“I note that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the potential for real-world consequences coming from legal uncertainty, some on the Conservative Benches laughed. We do not find this subject amusing; we view it as incredibly serious. If we do not have a deal with Mauritius, Conservative Members know that it would have every incentive to do a deal with someone else. We would face the risk of joint military exercises around the base—I did not hear a single word about that from Opposition Members. We would face the risk of other countries setting up outposts on surrounding islands, which appears not to be a concern for Opposition Members. We would also have the risk of hostile actors trying to interfere with crucial communications, and crucial communications they are.”
“No, I will keep speaking, as is my right. Without a negotiated solution with Mauritius, it would pursue its legal campaign; it has made that very clear, as the shadow Minister knows. That would lead to an inevitable, legally binding judgment, which would be— [ Interruption. ]”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, in that kind of situation, we would unfortunately see international organisations following that determination, such as the International Telecommunication Union. [ Interruption. ] I heard from the Opposition Front Bench, “Let them have a go.” The consequences of letting them have a go could be that critical spectrum for telecommunications that is essential for our security is compromised, another issue about which I sadly heard nothing from the right hon. Member for Witham. The legal necessity of this deal has rightly been recognised by successive Governments.”
“I agree with the chuntering; it is risible that the Conservatives undertook 11 rounds of negotiations on this subject, and they simply will not admit to having done so. The right hon. Lady herself stated that that was something she could not speak about.”
“I find the approach of Opposition Members to this subject to be very confusing. [Hon. Members: “Shocking.”] Some say shocking—I say confusing. Some Opposition Members have said that they cannot speak about those 11 rounds of negotiations. A moment ago, we heard an intervention stating that those negotiations must have been completely different in content, without spelling out why they were different. I find this a peculiar situation. Of course, there are many things that the Conservatives started that Labour did not want to continue—economic chaos and damage to our public services are some—but the Conservatives began those negotiations, and indeed had 11 rounds of them.”
“I think that the ordinary general public would be pretty concerned about a situation in which we had the risk of joint— [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members laugh. They laugh about the risk of joint military operations around the base. They laugh about the risk of other countries setting up outposts on surrounding islands, and they seem unconcerned about the threat of hostile actors trying to interfere with crucial communications. Those matters are of concern to the public, and they are of concern to the Government.”
“We did not do so then and we do not intend to do so now. We are of course engaging with the new US Administration, including discussing the full details of the agreement, just as we engaged with the previous US Administration. I find it rather strange that the Opposition are confused about the nature of modern negotiations. As we and Mauritius have said repeatedly, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago that protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia, continuing the practice of the previous Government. As is usual in these circumstances, negotiations have been led by officials with clear guidance and oversight from Ministers.”
“Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the details of the treaty after signature, when it is laid for scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process before ratification. We would be delighted to have the right hon. Lady’s scrutiny, as would be usual. To suggest that there was an acceleration of the negotiations before the Mauritian election flies in the face of the facts, as has been the case with many comments from the Opposition on this matter. When we took office, the negotiations had been ongoing for two years. We continued to engage with the Mauritian Government and to work in lockstep with the United States. While we recognise that it was in the interests of all sides to finalise the deal quickly, we did not put a completion date on the negotiations.”
“He confirmed what this Government have been saying with clarity and consistency since the announcement of a political agreement in October, so let me spell out what we have said about the duration and terms of the treaty and what Prime Minister Ramgoolam confirmed, which appears to have been missed in previous comments. The deal will be for 99 years and can be extended if both sides agree. The UK will additionally have a right of first refusal, meaning that the islands cannot be given to any other country at the end of the treaty without us first agreeing, and there are no changes to the rights and authorities that we will have to operate the base.”
“I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, but he surely understands the difference with access to spectrum, which is the key issue here. It is critical. I find it strange that he allots that issue so little consideration, when it could be of such strategic importance to our country. The right hon. Member for Witham talked about remarks from Mauritian Prime Minister Ramgoolam. It appears that she has been spending a lot of time looking him up at length on the internet. I therefore find it rather strange that she did not see what he stated on 5 February, where he set the record straight about the terms of the deal. Perhaps she does know about this, but chose not to refer to it in her remarks.”
“I am more than happy to go into the financial question in a few moments, because this too, sadly, is an issue about which the Opposition have been deeply confused. As for the question regarding the Attorney General, he met his Mauritian counterpart for a courtesy call. As was stated when he was in the UK in January, that meeting did not constitute part of the formal negotiations. I find it strange that the term “formal negotiations” is not understood by the Opposition; again, they are confused. On the broader question, the Attorney General has been clear that, as has been the case with every other Attorney General, whenever a conflict might be identified in any hypothetical circumstance, it would be dealt with as part of the proper process and he would recuse himself, if that were needed.”
“I know that the right hon. Gentleman is honourable, and he may wish to reflect on his opening remark, because that was not his normal style at all. As for his question about finances, it is clear that a financial element was vital to securing a deal to protect the operation of such a vital base over the course of 99 years. If we do not pay—I will say it again—someone else will. Our adversaries would jump at the chance to establish outposts on the outer islands. There has been a lot of inaccurate speculation about the cost of this treaty.”
“I know that the right hon. Gentleman understands full well that this is because of the legal uncertainty that is created by the current situation. That has been recognised time and again. It was the reason his Government engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations, and it is why there is this problem. I am surprised that Conservative Members are so unconcerned about the contestation that we see in that part of the world, and the need for our country’s interests to be put first.”
“No, I will not take another intervention from the right hon. Gentleman. My response was very clear. On the subject of inaccurate speculation about the cost of the treaty, Prime Minister Ramgoolam has confirmed that the reports of a doubling in value are completely false. The overall cost of the deal has not changed from that negotiated with the former Mauritian Prime Minister. There have been some changes in the financial arrangements—”
“Frankly, we heard wild enough ones earlier when the Leader of the Opposition had her say, and the Prime Minister explained that she was wide of the mark. Of course, as colleagues would expect, any funding arrangement and the departmental split of any costs arising from the treaty with Mauritius will be finalised through the spending review. I have to say that I am used to hearing some pretty wild maths from the Conservatives, and we had the true Tory kamikaze Budget of course, but they are surpassing themselves, because it is ridiculous to compare—”
“I was just about to come on to that. There have been some changes to enable a limited element of front-loading, but the overall net present value of the treaty payments, which accounts for the impact of indexation, is not higher than it was. I will not press this point, because it would be very unfair to Opposition Members, but surely, when they talk about economic illiteracy, they are not falling into the trap of confusing timing with magnitude, because there is a pretty obvious difference between the two. We will provide more information on the departmental budgetary impacts in due course. The details will be set out when the treaty is laid before Parliament. We are seeing more bizarre claims about this issue even just within this debate.”