Anneliese Dodds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Political Donations · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Israeli-Palestinian Peace: International Fund · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 6 Mar 2025 · English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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 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.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I have made that very clear previously. That carve-out for the Commonwealth is very clear within the ICJ. I think I looked at the right hon. Gentleman with a smile. If that is somehow looking at him in a “lecturely” way, I am terribly sorry.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  No, I said that I would make progress.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson).

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I will continue to explain why the Conservatives cannot compare speculative figures for the lifetime cost of a 99-year-long agreement to protect our national security with an annual uplift to defence spending that is the largest since the cold war. There is clearly a difference of many orders of magnitude, and I feel that they really need to reflect on the bizarre claims they are making. Although this has necessarily been a state-to-state negotiation, with our priority being to protect the base, we recognise the importance of the islands to Chagossians, and we have worked hard to ensure that this agreement reflects the importance of the islands to Chagossians. Some may say that it is farcical to talk about Chagossians, but I do not believe it is farcical. As we have already announced, we will finance a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of the Chagossian community. We will work with Mauritius to start a new programme of visits for Chagossians to the Chagos archipelago, including to Diego Garcia, and Mauritius will be free to develop a programme of resettlement on the islands, other than Diego Garcia.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I will happily give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I give way to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will make progress.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I do appreciate the kind tone in which the hon. Gentleman expressed his remarks. However, I would say, respectfully, that the running sore is the situation that has led to our country’s national security being subject to legal jeopardy because this issue had not been resolved. The Conservative Government, on whose Benches he sat, had 11 rounds of negotiations with Mauritius on this subject, and this Government have been determined to make progress for the sake of our national security.