Anneliese Dodds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Increasing access to employment opportunities for disabled people and improving the retention of disabled workers were urgent before, and they are even more urgent now. My right hon. Friend did not mention the Mayfield review, although she has just mentioned it in response to a question. Can I please push her on that review? First, can she expedite it; secondly, can it include disabled people more meaningfully than it has until now; and thirdly, will it indicate how the Government will implement our manifesto commitment to increase access to reasonable adjustments?

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to reduce energy costs. He has heard about the need for that from me, from many other colleagues and from industry, and he has acted. The previous Government did not act; he has gripped on to this. I welcome that, because it will level the playing field for UK automotive, including for BMW Cowley. Of course, we also need action to incentivise domestic electric vehicle production, rather than the purchase of foreign-made electric vehicles. Will that be included in the ZEV—zero emission vehicle—mandate refresh that is referred to in the strategy?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Safety Education · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome you to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this debate. Water safety education is particularly important for my constituency of Oxford East, for several reasons. We have many bodies of water in Oxford, which can be very cold, as in many other constituencies, because of hidden depths; we also have, in many cases, poor access for rescue vehicles; and many of those bodies of water contain submerged obstacles. We also have in Oxford a young population that is exuberant and fun-loving. Of course that is a wonderful thing, but celebrations in my city too often turn to tragedy, as we saw most recently with promising student Wesley Akum-Ojong. I regrettably cannot mention every tragic case from Oxford, but I mention him because I understand that he had aspired to become Britain’s youngest Prime Minister, and I have to say that, judging by his many achievements, I do not think it would have been long before he would have been elbowing us out of the way. He was an incredible young man. I pay tribute to him, and to his friends and family, and to all those who have lost loved ones in my city from drowning. Oxford is also highly prone to flooding, and it is often difficult for people to assess how deep floodwater is and where obstacles are submerged. Better education about the potential dangers of the water is imperative. It needs to be part of a broader suite of initiatives, from effective signage to access to supervised swimming, like Oxford city council’s free swimming programme for under-16s, and—where required and feasible—physical restrictions. There is in my city—I am sure this applies in other constituencies represented here—a vigorous debate over the rights of wild swimmers to access waterways that have been deemed to be unsafe. I understand wild swimmers’ contention that they will often be swimming together, that they do not tend to dive into the water, and that they are experienced swimmers; but they are, of course, still at risk, including from effluent discharges and algal blooms. In any case, I would urge anyone considering wild swimming to consult the Environment Agency’s information on water quality, and above all, to educate themselves about the dangers of the water, even if they think they are experienced. Because no matter how experienced a swimmer is, if they are in unsupervised waterways with the water temperature below 16° they could experience cold water shock, or the other hazards I mentioned. The chair of the National Water Safety Forum has said that “drowning can occur anywhere and to anyone”. So far, in Oxford, we have seen particular efforts from the Oxfordshire fire and rescue service to educate people about the dangers of the water. That has been really positive, along with the water safety code, and simplified messages such as, “Call, tell, throw” and “Float to Live”. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen spoke passionately about ensuring that our schools are always reinforcing that message. As he said, water safety and swimming are mandatory within PE in primary school, but that is subject to problems of access and disparities related to social class and ethnicity. Becky Francis’s curriculum and assessment review for the Government has shown that it is difficult for many schools to prioritise PE because of the accumulated challenges that they face; there is a particular issue at key stage 4. I hope that, as she works towards the full review, she can look at the specific issue of water safety in more detail. I also hope that the Government will consider it carefully—I know that the Minister would want to be doing that—as they are reviewing the relationships, sex and health education draft statutory guidance. I know that organisations in Oxford are really keen about that, so that they can have a joined-up approach with local schools, with better signage information and so on. Finally, it is really important, in undertaking this work, that wherever possible young people themselves are included in the conversation, because they know what will be most effective, a lot of the time, with their peers. I believe that one of the most effective measures in my city is a striking memorial painted to Hussain Mohammed, a 15-year-old who died after jumping from Donnington bridge in 2012. Very sadly, he is not the only person to die from that cause. Thirteen years later, that bridge still features the touching mural that reminds people of Hussain and hopefully recalls the need to stay water-safe.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. When it comes to equity, I am sure she is aware that the High Court ruled five years ago that there was an issue of discrimination. The approach since then has been that we need to wait for wholesale marriage reform, but this is a very simple change. Does she agree that the Government should just take it forward, given the overwhelming case for it, and not wait for wholesale marriage reform?

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with my hon. Friend; she is absolutely right that sadly we face the same threats from autocrats and those who seek to support them and disrupt free and fair elections. We need to ensure that we are sharing information, particularly given the speed of change. It has already been mentioned that, with the development of AI in particular, we are seeing increased threats to our democracies. We need to make sure that we are sharing information in that regard. I hope the Government will keep discussions on these matters open. I commend this deal.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Ms McVey, particularly in a week when the Government acted in our national interest by ensuring a deal that is good for business, bills and the security of our borders. By contrast, the one struck by the Conservatives was, as I put at the time, thin as gruel. It has been particularly catastrophic for our exports, which have crashed by 21%. The new agreement finally starts to set that right. The measures on carbon trading will boost the Treasury’s coffers while reducing businesses’ outgoings, and the commitments on defence will help to deliver for more communities the kind of once-in-a-lifetime reindustrialisation that we are seeing rightly take place in Barrow. The proposed measures on youth mobility are not a return to freedom of movement; they are a ladder to opportunity. I would urge the Minister, as they are developed, to particularly focus on ensuring that low-income and working-class Brits can benefit. I benefited from a brief period studying in France. I hope that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) will not mind if I mention that I believe it is a matter of public record that he worked in France. I do not believe the ladder to opportunity that we both benefited from should be kept down on the ground for others. I am aware that many elements of this deal are still being worked on. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for his endeavour in that regard. In the remainder of my hopefully brief speech, I want to underline two critical areas of additional focus for the Government. First—this has already been remarked on by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—it is important that the automotive industry’s concerns, given the integrated nature of its supply chain, are at the front of the Government’s mind. I understand the head of the Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders has rightly said: “The EU remains the UK automotive industry’s largest and closest trading partner”. In his words, “progress…towards a deeper strategic partnership is significant”. As we move forward, I urge the Government to keep engaging with the SMMT, as I know my hon. Friend the Minister has been, and with the broader automotive sector—yes, on the critical issue of rules of origin, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow rightly mentioned, but also on the development of the battery value chain and the improvement of supply chain resilience. I hope those discussions can also include relevant trade unions, and I know that workers at BMW Cowley are rightly keen for that to be the case. Secondly, I have also already called in this place for the Government to consider undertaking a structured dialogue on tech regulation and the defence of democracy with the EU. That is not so we take on each other’s rules and regulations. We have distinct rules and regulations in this area; our Online Safety Act 2023 is not the same as the Digital Services Act, although they share many similarities. A dialogue would enable us to share information, particularly in the face of the kind of onslaught of disinformation and misinformation that our democracies have not seen for decades. The reality is that the leadership of many tech companies believe they are above accountability to democratically elected national Governments. I saw that painfully last week when I was in Moldova with a Conservative colleague for an Inter-Parliamentary Union visit; it has been subject to sustained Russian-sponsored disinformation campaigns. We have seen the same kinds of campaigns, albeit at far lower intensity, in many other democracies, including in our country and many EU nations. We have to recognise that the kind of free and fair elections that are the right of people in our country are also an essential element of our security, just like the other matters covered in this propitious deal.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I want to ask him specifically about goods exports—this relates to the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). I just looked at the House of Commons Library analysis, which states: “Goods exports to the EU exceeded £215 billion in 2017, 2018 and 2019 but have not done so in any calendar year since”— that came out in April 2025— “and were £177 billion in 2024”. Our goods exports to non-EU countries have not recovered, either. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise those figures?

• 22 May 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend has set out that this deal, which is essential for our national security, will cost less than a quarter of 1% of our national defence budget. Will he also confirm that this deal costs far less than other base deals, such as France’s deal with Djibouti, yet offers vastly superior strategic scale and value?

• 20 May 2025 · Government Travel Advice: Laos · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) for enabling me to make a brief contribution to this debate, and to highlight an issue about a Brit from my constituency who faced a very difficult situation in Laos. I wish, however, to start my remarks by saying how sorry I was to hear about the truly tragic death of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I very much appreciate the family being here today, and all the work they have undertaken. My former extremely vulnerable constituent was coerced into drug trafficking, apparently enabled online, and detained at the Laos border in June 2024. From then onwards he was detained awaiting trial and facing the death penalty, and under Laotian procedures he was unable to move prisons for more than six months before he died. In December he spent one night in hospital before being discharged back to prison, where he died at the age of 65, thin and with wounds on his body apparently from scurvy. I know that the FCDO engaged with his case when he was still alive and after his death, but I wish briefly to underline two points. First, the length of pretrial detention can make British citizens and their families vulnerable to financial extortion in Laos, and there is a particular problem with obtaining good quality legal support. I urge the Department to continue to engage with my constituent’s family on that issue, given their concerns about recommended lawyers. I appreciate that the FCDO’s travel advice indicates that legal representation is far below UK standards in Laos, but the impact of that on people in desperate situations cannot be underestimated. Secondly, and finally, it is imperative that the risk of what is effectively the transnational exploitation of vulnerable people is better recognised. There must be a co-ordinated response between police and border services, especially when clearly vulnerable individuals are travelling to countries such as Laos. The FCDO website is rightly clear about penalties in Laos for illegal drugs, and that the standard of prisons is poor, but vulnerable and coerced individuals are being manipulated, and they need more than information on a website to protect them.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. It is important that we consider that now.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way at the moment. That is why it is important that that exclusion is put very clearly on the face of the Bill.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. When the Bill first came before the House, I was a Minister attending Cabinet and therefore unable to speak on the subject. I genuinely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and every single Member who served for so many hours on the Bill Committee for this incredibly important Bill. I also thank the hundreds of my constituents who have contacted me with their views. I genuinely believe that every single one of them was motivated by compassion and a determination to reduce suffering, and in many cases their views were shaped by their experience of death and of suffering in life. I know that that is the case for many of us in the Chamber as well, so I hope that the same spirit of respect that we saw previously will continue throughout the passage of the Bill, whatever our views may be. New clause 16(1)(a) would exclude from the scope of the Bill those who do not want to be a burden on others or on public services, and paragraph (b) would exclude those experiencing a mental disorder, including depression. On the former, we have discussed this morning whether it is appropriate to mention international analogies. They will, of course, be instrumentalised by those who have different views about this important subject. I have personally found survey evidence from the Oregon example of people expressing that they felt they were a burden to be highly compelling. I do not believe that it indicates that that was the primary reason why they sought assisted dying, but I believe that it is an important piece of evidence that we need to take into account. I also believe that we need to look at situations where people who are potentially subject to coercion have been evaluated by professionals in our society, and where we might be concerned about the outcomes. I ask for Members’ understanding here.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 7 Apr 2025 · Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.