Anneliese Dodds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As so many have said in this debate, our democracy must not be for sale, so it is disturbing that the campaign spending arms race is becoming out of control. As has been mentioned, in 2023 the previous cap on campaign spending of £19 million was increased massively to £34 million. None of our constituents was asked whether they wanted that, and the Electoral Commission said at the time that it had not seen evidence to justify the increase. We all know what can happen when campaign spending spirals out of control. A number of Members have referred to the situation in the US, where opaque crypto interests spent $189 million just between January and the end of June this year. That is with four months to go before the mid-term elections. We have also seen huge donations from crypto interests in our own country, but they were given in pounds. New clause 70 would set a limit on campaign spending of £24.4 million. That is what the previous limit of £19 million would be now, allowing for inflation, minus 15%, per the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I understand that the Government are keen to avoid additional legislation at this stage, given the time pressure for ensuring that votes at 16 are delivered. I also acknowledge the letter from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the First Secretary of State, which was published last night, urging the Electoral Commission to examine the matter. That letter makes it explicit that “spending limits on parties and candidates are too high, and ought to be reduced”. It asks the commission to provide recommendations to the Government by July 2027 at the latest. I am pleased that the Government have heard the call from Members right across the House from the many different parties represented here who have supported my new clause. I am really grateful to the Members who supported it. As the Government have made that request to the Electoral Commission clear, I will not push for a vote on my new clause, but I really want to see progress. The Electoral Commission now has to work speedily on a lowered limit for campaign spend, to stop this arms race. That message has come clearly from this House, and the commission needs to act on it now. In my remaining remarks, I want to urge the Government to move at pace on the further risks to UK democracy to which so many speakers have referred, many of which are covered by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). As others have said, we must ensure greater transparency on targeted online political advertising, including that facilitated through artificial intelligence, and on additional measures on third-party campaigning and political funding. The stakes really could not be higher, as so many have said. The UK Extremism and Democratic Resilience Centre has recently shown that online platforms and AI-generated content are playing a powerful role in amplifying not just divisive narratives, but extremist narratives and conspiracy theories. This has led to a disturbing increase in the size of the still small, but now much more consequential, minority that accepts political violence. Over one in 10 people in our country now say that they could accept political violence. There has also been an increase in those who reject at least some democratic norms, with almost a third of people saying that we should ignore democratic institutions and rules if they get in the way of change. In the centre’s words, “hostile states and domestic extremists are deliberately accelerating these fractures to further destabilise Britain”. The Bill and the Government’s amendments will help, but they do not yet meet the full scale of this challenge. The Government have to engage in the kind of protection and promotion of democracy that they successfully urge many other nations to do when under the threat of foreign interference. Extremist narratives have to be contested and online platforms regulated and reformed, so while welcoming the Bill overall, I will continue to push for change so that we can really ensure that we have what is the right of every citizen in our country: free and fair elections.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  As well as the ban on trade with settlements that we are debating, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government now need to spell out exactly how they will seek to dissuade those who might engage in the E1 project, which would be so damaging to the prospects of a two-state solution?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing it, and I agree with many of his remarks and those made by other speakers. I particularly agree with his remarks about the New Contract initiative. The UK’s AI sector has grown 23 times faster than the rest of our economy. We must ensure continued investment and the realisation of productivity gains from appropriate use, but we must also secure greater domestic control and resilience, and mitigate near and later-term risks from inappropriate use, if we are truly to become an innovation nation. I believe that we must change our approach to AI, and I want to spend the time that I have setting out the case for doing that. Above all, we must seek sovereignty as if we actually mean it. Supporting UK niches, such as photonics and quantum, is key to sovereignty and to boosting growth from Southampton to Sheffield and from Belfast to Birmingham, but we must recognise how crucial access to frontier models is to our sovereignty. The recent debacle with Fable 5 and Mythos 5 only serves to underline that. The sovereign AI fund needs a clearer rationale. It should be developing UK companies and partnerships, and public stakes should genuinely put our people and our places first. We must also work more concertedly with allies to develop joint sovereign capability. AI development needs to be part of an economic security reset with the EU, and we need to be able to participate in the Scaleup Europe Fund. Interestingly, Mistral AI’s chief executive recently claimed that the EU has at most two years to build its own AI or become permanently structurally dependent on the US or China. The UK must be included in that EU-level debate before it is too late. Delivering stronger sovereign control and resilience also means the Government putting their money where their mouths are and supporting UK AI and UK partnership AI in procurement. All Departments should be assessed publicly on that, and the Competition and Markets Authority should be engaged on how to ensure more advanced market commitments to support our sovereignty. We can learn from other countries on that. Look at France, which recently dropped Palantir from its intelligence services. Of course I realise that changes cause disruption, but we cannot work purely on the basis of cost or short-term capability any more. We have to make assessments on the basis of control and resilience, given their significance for our national interest. In public services, we must move beyond no, low and performative adoption to appropriate and transparent adoption that puts people and places first. It is critical that the UK can deploy sufficient compute to support those aspirations. I hope that the AI Energy Council can develop plans for a line delivery of renewable energy and data centre projects, as well as fixing difficult issues such as demand modulation to unblock additional capacity. There can genuinely be a win-win here, but for that and greater adoption to be achieved, I agree with what others have said: we have to face up to public concern about the risks. We need only look at what is happening in Scotland right now to see that. First, on unemployment, half of all UK workers feel that they will lose their job to AI. From what I can see, there is very mixed evidence about that so far, beyond the field of software development. Pleased as I was to see the Early Careers Jobs Alliance and the AI adoption insights agreement from the Government, we must go further. Lessons should be learned from the consultation on the social media ban, “Growing up in the online world: a national consultation”. I would like to see the Government launch a consultation on starting work in a world of AI, so that we can involve young people who are worried about that, gather their good ideas and show that the Government are engaging with that crucial issue. We should be doing far more in our schools and colleges to prepare our children.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises a really important point, and it is part of a broader picture. My understanding is that something like only half of all schools have an appropriate AI policy. Simply saying to students, “Don’t use AI”, having an unorganised approach to it, or just taking a company’s word for it without a broader set of guidance and frameworks for deployment is not supporting our children and young people. Saying, “Just don’t use AI”, when we know children and young people are using it, is not fair to them, and will do a disservice to our economy in the future. Our children and young people need to understand how AI works, as well as the risks of cognitive offloading and the negative impacts on social interaction from inappropriate use. I also want to see us encouraging international discussion in the OECD and the United Nations about taxation—taxation of permanent establishment, capital gains and the cost of human labour compared with tokens. That does not need to have an immediate impact; we could set a threshold of employment impact to trigger a token tax, for example. However, we cannot run away from this debate, especially given how much services dominate our economy. Secondly, we have to engage with concerns about the safety of frontier models. As I said many months ago alongside the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, just regulating applications after harm has been done is unacceptable. Grok should not have been able to produce 3 million non-consensual nudified images in the first place. New York, California, Illinois and the EU have moved towards approaches requiring mandatory assessment of frontier models, and we should too. We should place the AI Security Institute on a statutory footing as a first step, and we should use our presidency of the G20 next year to reinvigorate global attempts at co-ordination, which started with the Bletchley conference but have effectively stalled since. We can work with EU countries to do that as well as with nations from India to Brazil. Thirdly, and finally, although AI can release huge productivity gains, we have to recognise that unscrupulous and inappropriate use is already imposing huge costs too.