Gaza and Sudan
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the response by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I agree with him about the importance of an arms embargo around Sudan, and about ensuring that it is properly implemented. It is deeply disturbing that weapons are still being supplied to the RSF, despite the atrocities, and that there are still weapon flows to all sides. That means that there are immensely serious issues, including around borders, access and routes, that we need to continue to pursue through international pressure.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the investigations. The UN Human Rights Council resolution that the UK drafted with partners provides for the UN-led investigation of these atrocities, but that will be scant comfort to anyone if there is not also the urgently needed action to prevent further atrocities. There must be accountability, but there must also be urgent action to prevent atrocities in the first place.
On Gaza, work is under way to constitute the International Stabilisation Force. Some countries are prepared to come forward and contribute, and crucially the mandates were provided last night. The ISF must operate in line with international law. Further details of how the new Palestinian committee will operate need to be developed, and we want it to be constituted as rapidly as possible. Also, we must see an end to illegal settlements. We need to rebuild the connections between the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, so that we can have a Palestinian state, in which people live in peace and security, alongside the Israeli state. That is the only way that we will get to peace for both.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
On Sudan, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about potential additional sanctions and aid access, but surely, given the nightmarish reports, we need to go far further if we are to do what she has committed to doing—if we are to prevent further atrocities, and prevent impunity for perpetrators. Will she push the Quad to pressure the RSF to do two things: first, to allow International Criminal Court forensic teams and the media into El Fasher and on to other key sites; and secondly, to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to detainees, given that they seem to be routinely subject to torture and mass execution?
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend has been raising her deep concerns and championing these issues for some time, including in her work to deliver the London Sudan conference, which took place last year. She asks a series of questions about the ICC forensic teams and the ICRC, and I agree with her.
Conflict in Sudan
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, based on long years of experience. I will certainly discuss his suggestions with the Minister with responsibility for Africa.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification recently discovered conditions of famine in El Fasher and Kadugli. It has also stated that conditions in Dilling in south Kordofan are likely similar to those in Kadugli, but those conditions cannot be classified due to insufficient reliable data. Does the Minister agree that just as it is unacceptable to indiscriminately kill civilians, health workers and aid workers and restrict aid access, it is unacceptable to deny access for the purposes of famine classification, and are the Government making that point to the belligerents?
Mr Falconer
That is a very important point. It is absolutely vital that the IPC has the access it requires to make its classifications. I note with alarm and dismay how often this House relies on IPC classifications, not just in Sudan but in Gaza. It is vital that the IPC can do its work properly, so that its classifications, which are the world standard, can be relied on.
Drug-related Deaths
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlotte Nichols
I absolutely agree. Later, I will try to develop my argument for that kind of approach, which we could take here but do not.
As a Parliament and as a society, we may have inadvertently come to accept the yearly statistics, and have perhaps not given them the necessary thought, but I stress that there are cost-effective solutions that could save the taxpayer money and save the lives of our constituents, while taking money out of the pockets of exploitative, organised criminal gangs.
I am afraid to say that the problem may be far worse than is recognised. A recent report by King’s College London indicates that there has been a severe under-reporting of drug-related deaths over the past 15 years. The researchers found that drug-related deaths have been under-reported by 30%, and opioid-related deaths between 2011 and 2022 were found to be 55% higher than recorded, putting the estimated number of opioid-related deaths in that period north of 39,000.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She will be aware that many of those who have died from complications and overdoses related to opioids died on their own. That reflects the social isolation that so many experience when they become addicted to drugs. Does she agree that it is incredibly important that the social isolation of those seeking to move beyond addiction is broken through, and will she join me in thanking organisations like Jungle in my constituency, which seek to provide companionship and support for those who are trying to move beyond addiction?
Charlotte Nichols
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. The clearest way to recovery is with companionship and support—there is no path to recovery without that—and I of course give credit to the organisation she mentioned that is doing such fantastic work in this space, as we were discussing earlier today.
The implications of the under-reporting of drug-related deaths are that the problem is far worse than previously thought and the decision to cut funding to services under the previous Government was based on flawed figures. The National Audit Office reported that between 2014 and 2022 there was a 40% reduction in real-terms spending on adult drug and alcohol services, so I do not think it is a coincidence that the Office for National Statistics has reported a near doubling in drug-related deaths since 2014, and that the number of deaths only rises every year.
It is clear that the problem has been made substantively worse by under-investment by the previous Government. We can all acknowledge that, but acknowledgment without reform is meaningless. Persisting with failed, punitive policies will only deepen a crisis that already ranks among Europe’s worst. Now is the time to show the difference a Labour Government can make by putting in place harm-reduction policies that will start to undo this extensive damage.
As I mentioned previously, and I will repeat again because it is important, near half of all drug-related deaths registered in 2024 were confirmed to involve an opioid. In addition, this year’s ONS report found that the number of deaths involving nitazenes—a group of highly potent synthetic opioids—almost quadrupled from the year before. This marks the beginning of a new stage in the drug-related deaths crisis. As we have seen across the Atlantic, once those synthetic opioids take hold, it becomes all the more difficult to limit their devastation.
I welcome this Government’s changes to the human medicines regulation that further expanded access to naloxone, the lifesaving opioid antidote administered in the event of an overdose. Indeed, naloxone plays a vital role in the fight against drug-related deaths. However, further change is necessary and naloxone should be available rapidly and reliably in every community pharmacy in the UK, so that it can be quickly accessed in the event of an overdose.
It is important to note that naloxone cannot be administered by the person overdosing and must instead be administered by someone else. That necessitates further education on the existence of naloxone, and how and when to use it, with people who may come into contact with people who use opioids, including frontline service workers, such as police officers and transport workers, and the loved ones of those struggling with addiction.
The period immediately after release from prison or discharge from hospital is when risk peaks. Opt-out pathways for naloxone distribution should be the norm. Take-home naloxone on release or discharge, same-day linkage to community treatment and a clear pathway for handover care are essential for people struggling with substance use disorders.
As of December 2021, the Government estimated the annual cost of illegal drug use in England to be £20 billion. Around 48% of that was attributed to drug-related crime, while harms linked to drug-related deaths and homicide accounted for a further 33%. Notably, the majority of those costs are associated with the estimated 300,000 people who use opiates and crack cocaine in England.
Dame Carol Black’s landmark 2021 review of UK drug policy found that for every for every £1 spent on treatment, £4 are saved through reduced demand on the health and justice systems. In the face of rising fatalities and a cost of living crisis, failing to scale treatment and harm-reduction measures is both morally indefensible and financially illiterate. If we want to realise that four-to-one return, we must provide long-term funding for organisations delivering services. Drug treatment services can only deliver if they are able to retain staff, train consistently and scale according to demand.
Sudan: Government Support
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brian Mathew
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I agree with him. Will the Government do for Tawila what was not done for El Geneina, Zamzam, or El Fasher, and recognise its precariousness before it is too late? Will the Government use every diplomatic pressure and avenue available to secure guarantees that humanitarian assistance and aid can be delivered unimpeded?
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important debate, and to everyone who has participated. He mentioned impediments to aid, and he will be aware that the most recent, very disturbing IPC assessment showed that famine is taking place in El Fasher and Kadugli. That came out after the quad statement from the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE. On the subject of diplomatic pressure, does the hon. Member agree it is important that the UK uses its influence with those quad members, to say that they must pressure the belligerents to stop blocking that much needed aid in this famine situation?
Brian Mathew
I completely agree with the right hon. Lady and thank her for raising that point. A third of children under five in El Fasher are suffering from acute malnutrition, and some are resorting to eating animal feed and plant waste to survive. I would hope that everything possible will be done to allow humanitarian corridors to open for civilians to leave besieged areas, and to be assured they are not going from the frying pan into the fire. The supply of weaponry and military equipment is the oxygen keeping this conflict alive, and we as penholder should lead efforts to impose a binding, enforceable arms embargo across all of Sudan.
Sudan: Protection of Civilians
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the UK’s activity to promote the protection of civilians, following a reported massacre at El Fasher’s Saudi maternity hospital.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, before answering my right hon. Friend’s question, I will say a few words about Hurricane Melissa, which is currently a category 1 or 2 hurricane. It is passing through the Bahamas’ outer islands and is impacting our British overseas territory, the Turks and Caicos Islands. I have been in touch with the Governor and Premier in the last day. We have deployed response teams to the region and mobilised £2.5 million in emergency humanitarian aid to help Jamaica rebuild in the wake of this disaster, the full scale of which is only now becoming clear. I am sure that the House will concur with the words of His Majesty the King and all those who have sent their support and solidarity to all those affected, and will be thinking of those who have lost their life, not just in Jamaica, but in Haiti and other countries across the region.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask this question. She will know of my keen interest in this issue over many years, including during the time in my career when I was working with Oxfam in her constituency on these issues, and with our late close friend, Jo Cox, on past atrocities and appalling situations in the conflict in Sudan. The reports of mass atrocities against civilians, and of the forced displacement caused by the Rapid Support Forces advances in El Fasher, are horrifying and deeply alarming. The scale of suffering is unconscionable. What is happening is often based on people’s ethnicity. Women and girls face widespread sexual and gender-based violence, and there is evidence mounting of defenceless civilians being executed and tortured, with aid workers also being targeted as they try to reach the most vulnerable communities facing famine.
As the United Nations Security Council penholder, we have called an emergency council session later today to maintain the spotlight on this situation, and to build pressure on the RSF to de-escalate, in line with UN Security Council resolution 2736. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary issued a statement condemning the killing of aid workers, including the executions reported in the Saudi maternity hospital, which was one of the last functioning facilities in El Fasher. That followed her statement on 27 October, which called on the RSF to protect civilians and urgently facilitate safe, rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access.
As the third-largest donor, we are mobilising £23 million of the £120 million announced in April to support the emergency humanitarian response in North Darfur. That will support those facing sexual violence, and go towards the delivery of lifesaving food and health assistance by partners such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Sudan Humanitarian Fund and the Cash Consortium of Sudan.
As the Foreign Secretary said, the RSF leadership are responsible for the actions of their forces. All parties to the conflict must urgently act to protect civilians and facilitate safe, rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access. I can confirm that our special representative has been in contact with the RSF and Tasis to press for restraint and respect for international humanitarian law, and they are pressing for a call with Hemedti now.
Anneliese Dodds
Mr Speaker, I am very grateful to you for granting this urgent question. The scale of suffering in Sudan’s war on civilians is almost impossible to comprehend. A population the size of Australia’s are living in acute hunger. A population the size of London’s have been forced to flee their home. There are consistent reports of conflict-related sexual violence, and consistent warnings that if the international community do not act, we will effectively see a slow-motion Srebrenica. The Minister set out the reports of what may have happened at El Fasher’s maternity hospital yesterday evening; 460 people could have been slaughtered in a maternity hospital—patients, their companions and medical staff. This surely must be a turning point in the war, and for the international community’s focus on it.
The Minister talked about the special representative’s contact, but what specific conversations have the Foreign Secretary and Ministers had with their counterparts, particularly in the Quad countries—the United States said it wanted to take a leadership position on these issues—but also in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates on the issue of civilian protection?
Secondly, I was pleased to hear that an emergency session of the Security Council has been called. What will the UK Government press other countries in the UN to commit to at that session? Thirdly, are the Government confident that the arms control export regime has been robust in this case, given recent reports?
What is the Government’s assessment of claims that El Fasher appears to be at the start of a systematic and intentional process of ethnic cleansing of Fur, Zaghawa and Berti indigenous communities, through forced displacement and summary execution? Finally, what are the Government doing to prevent what is happening in El Fasher from also happening in Tawila, to which so many thousands of terrified civilians have fled?
Stephen Doughty
I share my right hon. Friend’s outrage and horror at the reports we are receiving. We have made repeated calls for restraint on all sides in this conflict. We have shown leadership as the UN penholder, as one of the largest donors, through our work with partners, including those in the Quad, and through the work of our special representative. I know that she reflects the concerns of many Sudanese living in the United Kingdom, including in my constituency, about what is happening.
My right hon. Friend asked some specific questions. We are in regular contact with our partners in the Quad and engage with all the countries regularly at both ministerial and official level. Senior officials, including the special representative, are speaking on an ongoing basis and asking all parties to show restraint and to refrain from activity that prolongs the conflict.
My right hon. Friend asked about the situation in Tawila. We want to ensure that people are supported, particularly those who have fled. As I said, we have mobilised £23 million to support the emergency humanitarian response. I am happy to come back to her with further details.
My right hon. Friend asked about the position that we will take at the Security Council. It will be very much in line with the position we have taken throughout, which is to call for an immediate end to the violence and to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected and upheld, that sexual violence is brought to an end and that we protect civilians in line with international law.
It is crucial that we continue to support accountability efforts for such atrocities, particularly as evidence emerges. We support the Centre for Information Resilience and non-governmental organisations looking to collect evidence of atrocities. We will not rest until all evidence has been collated and action is taken to hold people accountable.
We recently supported, for the third year running, lobbying efforts to secure the mandate renewal of the UN fact-finding mission at the UN Human Rights Council on 6 October. That is the only UN mechanism investigating human rights violations and abuse in Sudan. As hon. Members will be aware, it has not been allowed access by either side in the conflict, so it is incredibly difficult to establish what is happening, but we are looking carefully at all the evidence.
My right hon. Friend asked about the importance of our export control regime. I confirm that we continue to emphasise to all parties the importance of refraining from actions that prolong the conflict. Indeed, we want to see people come to the negotiating table to seek a political resolution. We take seriously any allegation that any equipment may have been transferred to Sudan in breach of any of our arms embargoes or conditions. I assure her that I am in contact with our officials on these matters. We must absolutely ensure that nothing is getting in that could facilitate these horrific scenes. We share my right hon. Friend’s horror and will continue to play a leading role, including at the United Nations Security Council later today.
Oral Answers to Questions
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
Let me make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s question. First, as he will know, the UK has extremely strong controls on arms exports, including to prevent any diversion. That remains important, and we will continue to take that immensely seriously.
Secondly, we need all countries with influence in the region to push the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces to ensure the protection of civilians. There are real, deep concerns about atrocities in Sudan, including sexual violence and the use of rape as a weapon of war. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the new work being done through the Quad countries—the US, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt—which have condemned the violence and called for an end to external support for the warring parties. We are pressing for the urgent implementation of that work.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
As penholder at the UN Security Council for both Sudan and the protection of civilians, the UK has a special responsibility following the fall of El Fasher and the appalling reports to which the Foreign Secretary referred. Will she call an emergency session of the Security Council focused on the protection of terrified civilians in Darfur, given recent events? She talked about the Quad. That statement was before the appalling events of the last three days. Will she push every country in the Quad—the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE—to act now to prevent further massacres?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my right hon. Friend that Sudan, the escalating violence and the humanitarian crisis must be on the agenda for the Security Council. We are pressing for that meeting to take place as soon as possible, and to ensure that the protection of civilians is at its heart. There was already a humanitarian crisis in Sudan, with huge numbers of people at risk of famine even before the escalating violence. I also agree on the urgent need to press all parties to cease the violence and to ensure that humanitarian aid can get through.
Humanitarian Situation in Sudan
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this really important debate. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), who was absolutely right to state that the war in Sudan is a war on civilians—that is what it is. She set out many of the truly grim statistics. I will try to put them in some perspective before building on the many calls to action that we have already heard.
My hon. Friend talked about the extent of displacement. I want Members to imagine that every single person living in this city of London had been forced to move, and then half again—every man, woman and child, whether frail or strong, ill or healthy, had been forced to move. That is the extent of the displacement that we have seen taking place in Sudan.
My hon. Friend talked about the extent of hunger—24 million people facing acute hunger. That is the same number of people as live in London, the south-east and the west midlands combined. It is only just less than the number of people who live in Australia. Can we imagine an Australia in which either people are already malnourished or they can stay nourished at the moment only by selling off livestock or other essential means of survival? That is the number of people we are talking about.
My hon. Friend talked about the 638,000 people who face catastrophic hunger—people who are living in famine. That is more than the population of Glasgow, Bristol or Cardiff. Can we imagine entering one of those cities and finding that one in three people is already acutely malnourished and there is an extreme shortage of calories per person per day? That is the extent of this catastrophe.
The numbers of those impacted by violence are staggering, and so is the depravity of the violence. Many Members have spoken incredibly powerfully about this. I have seen footage, particularly from Humanitarian Action for Sudan. I am very grateful for the work of that organisation, and to Zeinab Badawi and others who are so engaged. I have seen footage that I can never unsee. It is absolutely appalling. We have seen so many Rubicons being crossed. Sexual violence has already been referred to by colleagues. We have also seen camps for displaced people being purposely attacked, individuals being kidnapped and homes being burned.
So what to do? We have to maintain the political profile of Sudan. There is such a strong moral case; we all know that. There is also a strong security case, regionally and globally. We also know that, of the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children coming to our country, the highest number are from Sudan. We must maintain pressure for a ceasefire. We must work with the African Union. We must work with the EU-convened consultative group on Sudan. We must put pressure on those who deny famine, deny atrocities and refuse to engage with those processes. We must do more as the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is committed to that, as are the broader ministerial team. We must ensure that perpetrators are held to account. Above all, we must act with urgency. We have already heard that Sudan is now moving to the rainy season. That, coupled with the appalling behaviour of all warring parties in restricting access to aid, will make the situation even worse.
I will end with a personal story—so many Members have told such stories about this situation. I met some of those who had fled from violence in Sudan when I was in South Sudan. At the camp of Bentiu, I met people who had fled. They were the only members of their family to have survived. Their siblings had died while trying to walk through floodwater. They had died because of exposure. They had died because of diarrhoea. They had died because they did not have enough food to eat. They had died because they had been killed by warring parties. They had been abducted by warring parties. That is happening time and again, and it is happening while the international community is failing to act.
Government Travel Advice: Laos
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
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.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. We are currently asking Members to keep their contributions to 15 minutes and that, of course, will be reassessed very shortly—I can give him assurances about that.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
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.
Tim Farron
On the point that the right hon. Lady has just raised, the Oregon example suggests that in 2023, 47 people who opted for assisted dying gave as one of their primary motivations that they felt they were a burden to others. Is that not a great concern for everybody in the Chamber? Does it not undermine the argument about passing the Bill on the grounds of autonomy? That argument is not accurate, because the provisions affect the autonomy of people who will self-coerce.
Anneliese Dodds
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.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I tabled an amendment to ensure that the self-defined responsibility to go for assisted dying did not become a rationale. What is the right hon. Lady’s view on the impact of intersectionality on this issue? We know that, in practical terms, a number of people do not have full control over their lives. The Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), made the point that people who are often pushed around by their families and their wider society—particularly women from ethnic minorities—will be at particular risk from the gentle advice or suggestions from authority figures to whom they will be overly deferential, which could lead them into a very dangerous position.
Anneliese Dodds
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.
Kim Leadbeater
Is my right hon. Friend reassured by the fact that the Bill creates a criminal offence of coercion and pressure, which does not exist at the moment? No one is checking for coercion when victims of domestic abuse or others take their own lives under desperate circumstances.
Anneliese Dodds
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.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that there will only be three hours for a panel, and that the first and second doctors might not actually know the patient or have met them? Their ability to spot coercion will be very limited.
Anneliese Dodds
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.
Dr Opher
Does my right hon. Friend not see that, in Committee, we were very aware of coercion? That is one of the reasons why we have a social worker on the panel of experts. Additionally, clause 1(2)(b) says it will be necessary to establish that a person
“has made the decision that they wish to end their own life voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person”.
It is very clear in the Bill.
Anneliese Dodds
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.
Anneliese Dodds
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.
Daisy Cooper
I supported the Bill on Second Reading on condition that it would be strengthened to tackle the issue of capacity. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the Bill that we see today is very different from the one that we saw on Second Reading? There is a requirement for capacity. If there is any doubt at all, a doctor is compelled to report that person for additional assessment, and independent advocates have been introduced for people with learning disabilities, autism or mental disorders. Social workers are now included in the panel of experts, specific training on mental capacity is required, and there is a disability advisory board too. Does the right hon. Lady—
Anneliese Dodds
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.
Anneliese Dodds
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.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that clause 2(3) makes it very clear that no one can qualify for assistance under the Bill by reason only of either disability or mental disorder unless they also have six months’ terminality and capacity?
Anneliese Dodds
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.
Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
We went through many of these issues in some detail last Wednesday, and I am sure that I will return to this House to do so again. My position remains as it was on Wednesday.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
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?
Mr Falconer
My right hon. Friend speaks with force, and I condemn the position taken by Opposition Front Benchers. We have just heard from a fairly trenchant advocate for free speech; I thought that was the position of the Conservative party.