British Indian Ocean Territory

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

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.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I have to say that the Minister is putting up a very loyal and heroic defence of her Government’s policy. However, I predict that if the Government persist with this proposal, it will become a running sore for the governing party, and they will rue the day. The British people will know that they have just given away a sovereign territory unnecessarily, and what is more, they have put the icing on the cake with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. They will never live it down, so my advice to the Government is to quit while they can.

[Anneliese Dodds]

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.

Ukraine

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

This Government have engaged repeatedly with our allies on the need for continued support for Ukraine. That has been the case in respect of, for example, the European Political Community—the meetings we had, and the call to action on the shadow fleet that emerged from them—and it has been the case in respect of all the engagement we have had with NATO allies, and the Prime Minister’s engagement with Olaf Scholz and President Macron just a few days ago. That engagement will continue, and it is critically important for the UK Government. We have also welcomed sustained bipartisan US support for Ukraine, which has been key to the international effort. Let me underline what I said earlier. The UK and the US have been steadfast allies, working together closely for more than a century. That has applied, regardless of political stripe, across the institutions in both our countries, and we are determined that it will continue.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I commend the Government for their positive response to the urgent question, but may I press the Minister on the Storm Shadow issue? There is really no point in the west arming Ukraine to shoot down the missiles when it cannot shoot the launch pads. What discussions are the Government having with our American counterparts? Will she confirm that a request has been made to the US Administration? When are we expecting an answer, and if the answer is no, what will we do?

[Anneliese Dodds]

The UK Government have been crystal clear that we will do everything we can to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, and to ensure that it has the equipment it needs to defend its territory from Russia’s illegal invasion. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we will not comment on operational decision making.

International Women’s Day

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Bastions of feminism—and I hear one on the other side of the House—who highlight this risk, and others such as Germaine Greer, Professor Kathleen Stott and Professor Jo Phoenix, and journalists such as Suzanne Moore, are bullied online and even hounded out of their jobs because they talk about this. But we, as legislators, must be clear and courageous about what a man is and what a woman is.

Today’s interim report from the independent review of gender identity services for children and young people by Dr Hilary Cass notes the rapid increase in the number of adolescent girls presenting with gender distress. It states:

“At present we have the least information for the largest group of patients—birth registered females first presenting in early teen years”.

It is essential that we understand why we are witnessing this historically unprecedented number of young girls who are finding puberty so difficult to navigate. The Government’s proposed conversion therapy Bill must be reviewed in the light of this, and we must wait until the full report comes out before we present the Bill for Second Reading.

It is a scientific fact that our biological sex is immutable. Professor Lord Winston said on the BBC’s “Question Time”:

“I will say this categorically—that you cannot change your sex. Your sex actually is there in every single cell in the body.”

The responsibility for clarity starts with us as legislators. We have to be clear about what words mean in our legislation—but, astonishingly, some of us are reluctant to be clear. A woman is an adult female human. Only this week, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) was asked to define a woman on the media, and she was unable, or unwilling, to give a clear answer.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I would like to ask the hon. Member for evidence for the statement he has just made. I would like him to provide a transcript of my comments—any quotes that he can find anywhere that would indicate that at any point I have not been clear about what a woman is. It is quite easy for me, given that I am a woman.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I have not furnished myself with a quote, but I am very happy to write to the hon. Lady. I can promise her that she did not answer the question when she was asked it.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am afraid it appears that the hon. Member may not have followed the evidence concerning what I stated. Perhaps he has consulted social media rather than looking at what I actually did state. I hope he will withdraw the comment he has just made.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

If I have misled the House by misrepresenting the hon. Lady, I absolutely apologise for doing so. I will check the facts, and I will set the record straight if it is necessary for me to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

There have been others representing the Opposition Front Bench, Mr Deputy Speaker, who have said things like “I am not going to go down that rabbit hole.” Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition said on “Marr” that the phrase “only women have a cervix”

“is something that shouldn’t be said. It is not right.”

This is a strange way to stand up for women’s rights.

The Government must reply to this debate with clear definitions of “man” and “woman”, as enshrined in the Equality Act 2010. They must commit to preventing biological men, whatever identity they claim and with whatever sincerity they claim that identity, from gaining access to women-only safe spaces. If they do not, the Government are failing to protect women.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Is the hon. Member aware that I referred in my remarks to the Equality Act, which makes that provision for single-sex spaces, and that I have done so repeatedly? It appears that he was not aware of that. I have no problem with criticism when it is on the basis of what I have done, but with respect, I do have a problem with criticism on the basis of things I have not done, particularly during this debate.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I was not actually talking about the hon. Lady at that particular point, but she has put on record what she feels, and maybe when she replies to the debate she will give us a definition of what she thinks a woman is.

The Government must also challenge the Scottish Parliament’s proposed Gender Recognition Reform Bill, because it intends to endow all UK citizens with new controversial rights that have not been approved by this Parliament. That was never the intention of the devolution settlement. Anyone from any part of the UK would be able to acquire a gender recognition certificate in Scotland with no medical diagnosis. They could then change the sex on their birth certificate and so gain the right to use women-only safe spaces. That is completely unacceptable.