Oral Answers to Questions

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Today’s report from the Resolution Foundation shows that our economy is over a decade into a period of stagnation after 12 years of Tory rule, yet all we see from the Government Benches is a chaotic Tory tombola of tax cuts, and no plan for the more secure economy that women need. The impact on women has been stark, with 115,000 fewer women in employment now than before the pandemic. Does the Minister have any plans to halt that fall?

[Alan Mak]

The Resolution Foundation has actually praised this Government’s handling of the cost of living pressures. The cost of living support package, totalling £37 billion this year, is in line with our international competitors and more generous than France, Germany and Japan.

[Anneliese Dodds]

There we have it: there is no Conservative plan to support women’s employment. Women are being hammered by the Conservative cost of living crisis, which is getting worse by the day. After 12 years of economic failure, it is little wonder that Tory leadership candidates are trashing their own record. How else can the Minister explain the fact that by next April, average real pay for full-time women workers will have fallen by £670 since the Tories came to power?

[Alan Mak]

There are more people in employment and on payrolls than pre-pandemic levels, and women are driving that growth in our economy. The support programme this Government have introduced is helping women back into work, and I hope that will benefit the hon. Lady’s constituents as well as mine.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Secretary of State Anneliese Dodds.

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

Does the Minister agree that her Government have levelled women down, with women’s real wages now £226 less per year than when Labour left office?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I do not agree with that at all. We are entirely focused on tackling the causes of the gender pay gap by making it easier for people to afford childcare, normalising flexible working and helping women to get into the top jobs, particularly in areas such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics where they can earn more money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Secretary of State Anneliese Dodds.

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

The Minister for Women and Equalities has just lauded her Government’s social mobility tsar. Does the Minister for Higher and Further Education agree with that tsar that

“physics isn’t something that girls tend to fancy…There’s a lot of hard maths in there”?

If not, will she condemn those remarks and others that put girls and women off careers in STEM because of, to use the words of the Minister for Women and Equalities, the

“soft bigotry of low expectations”?

[Michelle Donelan]

Conservative Members believe in free speech and the right to have a view, but of course we want all people to aspire to go into their chosen careers, including in STEM.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Anneliese Dodds.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, may I associate myself with the warm and supportive remarks made from all across this House to the hon. Member for Bridgend?

Women are bearing the brunt of the Conservative cost of living crisis. At the sharp end, as the Women’s Budget Group has said, they are the “shock absorbers” of poverty, cutting essentials for themselves so that their kids do not go without. So will the Minister inform the House as to what assessment her Government have made of the financial impact of the Chancellor’s autumn Budget last year and his spring statement last week?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Treasury looks at all impacts in the round, and the financial statement the Chancellor announced last week would have had an equalities impact assessment, which would have taken into account all the various measures and their impact, based on protected characteristics.

[Anneliese Dodds]

In practice, it is disappointing that it did not include that analysis and the Minister does not appear aware of the impact of her Government’s policies on women. I can enlighten her: put together, the 2021 autumn Budget and the 2022 spring statement take £28 billion from the pockets of women over the next six years. That is £1,000 for every woman in the country. So why is her Government still refusing to impose a windfall tax to reduce bills for everyone and provide up to £600 for the households who need it, many of them run by women?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I simply do not recognise the figures that the hon. Lady is putting forward; it is not right to say that we are taking money out of the pockets of women. We have put forward a spring statement and a financial package that is looking after the interests of everyone in this country, because we look after people irrespective of their sex, gender, race; we look at people based on socioeconomic characteristics in particular and those who are most vulnerable or disadvantaged.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent advocacy for the victims of some of these most appalling crimes. He and I have spoken in detail about the measures that the Government are already taking to protect women and girls. Through our modern slavery legislation, they are at the centre of our protective measures. We will put our arms around them. We are already supporting them through the national referral mechanism, and we should be proud of that work. We are leading the world in our support for victims of trafficking.

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

The Minister’s awareness of problems with tackling sexual crimes is not good enough. We need action. Recording misogyny as a hate crime helps to

“seek justice and get support for victims”.

It helps to

“build a picture of intelligence which informs policing plans,”

and it sends

“a powerful message that this behaviour is not acceptable and there will be consequences.”

Those are direct quotes from officers in the North Yorkshire police and Nottinghamshire’s chief constable. Can the Minister explain why the Government seem to disagree and are planning to overturn Labour’s amendment to make misogyny a hate crime?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am afraid the hon. Lady was not listening to the response I gave earlier. I was very clear that we do not seek, as responsible legislators, to put measures on the statute book that have a harmful effect. The experts at the Law Commission—[Interruption.] I wonder why she is shaking her head. I advise her to read its report in detail, which is clear that the Labour amendment she champions would make it harder for us to prosecute sexual offenders and rapists. We on the Government Benches would not like to see that taking place.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I have been listening: I have been listening to police forces, to their officers and to victims. That is why we support the amendment.

Next week marks a year since Sarah Everard’s kidnap and murder. That appalling case should have spurred action to tackle the epidemic of violence against women. Instead, sexual offences and rape have hit record highs, while prosecutions have fallen to record lows. We must treat this violence as seriously as we treat terrorism and organised crime. Will the Government make violence against women and girls a strategic policing requirement?

[Rachel Maclean]

I think there is a lot of agreement across the House, despite the tone with which the hon. Lady has spoken to me. Violence against women and girls and dealing with rape prosecutions is a priority, which is why we have allocated record sums to tackle those horrendous crimes. The measures she mentions are something we are looking at and we will come forward with more information shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

Yes, the Minister for Disabled People will write to the hon. Gentleman, but I can confirm that we will spend the record sum of £58 billion this year on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the health and disability Green Paper and the strategy published in the summer of last year, which will be responded to in this House in the summer of this year.

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

The Conservatives are simply unable to get a grip on the cost of living crisis, and disabled people are paying the price. After failing to act in the Budget, yesterday the Conservatives voted against measures to slash the cost of fuel, which would have disproportionately benefited disabled people, who are more likely to be in fuel poverty. Indeed, the Conservatives seem to have little understanding of the reality of disabled people’s lives. Can anyone on the much enlarged Treasury Bench inform the House what percentage of disabled people currently live in relative poverty?

[Guy Opperman]

I will get the Minister for Disabled People to provide the precise stats for the hon. Lady, but I repeat the point that funding for disabled people and people with health conditions is at the record level of £58 billion.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I find it astonishing that no one on the Government Front Bench appears to be aware that 27% of disabled people in our country live in relative poverty—that is up by 1 million more disabled people since 2010. The situation looks set to be exacerbated by the Chancellor’s £70 million stealth cut to disability benefits in the Budget, of which the Minister seemed to be unaware when it was raised a moment ago. Were the rest of the Women and Equalities team consulted about that stealth cut?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Lady will understand that only the Minister who is asked the particular question can answer. The practical reality is that the spending review has shown that £58 billion is a record sum. It is an increase of nearly £5 billion in real terms since 2010.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

This morning, we learned that domestic abuse-related crimes have doubled in the last five years, but the number of prosecutions has fallen every year in the same period. A few minutes ago, the Foreign Secretary rightly lamented violence against women and girls across the world. When will she get a grip on the catastrophic situation facing many women and girls in our own country?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)]

This Government were the first Government to pass the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill to set out for the first time on the statute book protections for women and girls and other victims of domestic abuse. This is a sweeping piece of legislation, and we are working at pace to drive actions to increase prosecutions across the entire criminal justice system, backed up by a significant investment in our courts to address the backlog.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I regret that the Minister does not appear to have seen the figures from this morning. If she had, she would know that her Government’s measures are not working. I thought she would mention additional measures that are required: increasing sentences for stalking and domestic murder; introducing new defences for victims; stopping the social security, family courts and migration systems from failing victims; and making serial abusers subject to special supervision. Labour has called for all of these measures. When will the Conservatives enact them?

[Rachel Maclean]

I can tell the hon. Lady that the Conservatives are already enacting the vast majority of that long list she has just recited. As I said, we are the first Government to put domestic abuse legislation on the statute book. I would invite her to attend Home Office questions and address the Home Secretary directly to hear about the vast amount we are doing to protect women and girls in this country, which is a personal priority of the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

The Government are working on a number of issues, but the hon. Lady will be aware of the Access to Work programme, which has introduced a more flexible working offer to support disabled people to move into and retain employment, including with homeworking support and mental health support. Of course, the kickstart scheme also has more than £2 billion of funding.

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

Baroness Lawrence’s report, “An Avoidable Crisis”, found that the Government’s failure to ensure workplaces are covid secure had a disproportionate impact on black, Asian and ethnic minority workers. They are more likely to be trapped in low-paid, precarious work, more likely to be overlooked in decisions on workplace protections and more likely to be struggling to self-isolate due to the risk of financial loss. Why are the Government still refusing to require employers to report occupational covid infections and to publish their risk assessments to keep these workers safe?

[Guy Opperman]

I am sure the hon. Lady will meet the relevant Ministers, but she will be aware of the disability strategy and the Access to Work programme that we have introduced, which has a more flexible working offer for disabled people with the chance for homeworking support and mental health and wellbeing support. There are also 20 black, Asian and minority ethnic mentors working across the country, from Birmingham to Brent and from Glasgow to Manchester, to ensure there is true access.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I thank the Minister, and I hope he will at least attempt to answer my second question. People with protected characteristics have taken a disproportionate hit to their workplace income during the pandemic. Ethnicity pay reporting is a vital tool to address that. Three years have passed since the McGregor-Smith report recommended it, yet two days ago a Minister said that the Government still need to work out even what it makes sense to report on. Why are the incomes of black, Asian and ethnic minority people of apparently so little interest to this Government?

[Guy Opperman]

I would make two points. First, the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), has reminded me that the Government will be responding to the matter this autumn. Secondly, I was shielded myself. I had my third vaccine this morning. We need to make the case that everybody needs to go out and get their third vaccine or their booster straightaway.

Lobbying of Government Committee

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

This afternoon, we have heard a story of endemic cronyism—cronyism that has persisted for years and spread right across this Conservative Government and previous Conservative-led Governments. Parallels with the Conservative Governments of the 1990s are clear for all to see: jobs for the boys, all over again. Conservative sleaze is back. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) said, there is a difference this time—a difference in scale. This time, we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds of public money put at risk, and thousands of jobs.

What is staggering is the complacent and cavalier attitude of those involved, as so many have said today, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby). A former Conservative Prime Minister thought there was nothing wrong with texting the sitting Chancellor and two of his junior Ministers to ask for special treatment for the financial services firm that was paying his wages. A Chancellor thought there was nothing wrong with pushing his team to see whether they could amend a Government loan scheme to give Greensill access to hundreds of millions of pounds of public money. A Treasury and a Business Department thought there was nothing wrong with Greensill being accredited as a lender under one of the Government-backed schemes, even when it had been rejected by another, and this mere months before the firm collapsed altogether. All this took place when the vast majority of public servants, civil servants and, of course, key workers were working with integrity around the clock on the covid effort.

We know that before that, David Cameron thought there was nothing wrong with setting up Lex Greensill in the heart of Government, with a desk, business cards and his own No. 10 email address, and nothing wrong with giving him access to contracts worth billions of pounds. Indeed, a contract was lined up for Greensill to provide supply chain financing across the public sector, and it was pulled only a few days ago, when this scandal started to break.

Similarly, the Health Secretary thought there was nothing wrong with meeting the former Prime Minister for a drink with Lex Greensill to discuss how their firm could get access to NHS staff pay, packaging up loans as bonds to be sold to investors and trading on the good name of our NHS.

The Government’s former head of procurement thought there was nothing wrong with becoming an adviser to Greensill Capital while he was still a civil servant. I have never before heard of someone using the revolving door before they have even left the building. Ministers cannot wash their hands of that behaviour and say, “It was the civil service; it is nothing to do with us.” As my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) made clear, successive Conservative-led Governments have set the tone and the culture that allowed the behaviour we have heard about today—an approach to public office whereby the accountability and transparency that we should all expect have been replaced by a tap on the shoulder here, a nudge and a wink there.

We need a thorough and genuinely independent investigation to get to the bottom of this, one that can take evidence, call witnesses and report publicly. Instead, as we have heard, the Conservatives propose an inquiry run by the son of a former Conservative Cabinet Minister who works for the law firm that advised the Treasury on the design of the loan scheme that David Cameron lobbied for Greensill to access.

As we know, the Chancellor continues to run scared. He has not been seen in the House since the day after Greensill collapsed. Yesterday, we called for him to come to Parliament, but the Chancellor was frit. He seems to have forgotten his enthusiastic communications about his loan schemes. Indeed, at one point he tweeted proudly about CLBILS—the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme—with the hashtag #AskRishi. We would love to ask Rishi, but we would have to find him first.

In offering excuses for his absence, the Chancellor claims that neither he nor his Department had any oversight—any role whatever—in deciding who got access to the public lending schemes he announced. He must be the first Chancellor in history to go on the record as having no idea about who was getting access to hundreds of millions of pounds of public money and how they were obtaining it. He promised to level with the public, but I did not think that meant the Chancellor telling the public he did not have a clue what was happening with their money.

As the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution said earlier—it was very good to see her via video link—the use of public money is overseen by the Treasury.

Public money is not the Chancellor’s money, and it is not the Conservatives’ money: it is public money, and it should only ever be used in the public interest. It is simply not good enough for this Government to mark their own homework and hide from scrutiny, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) has just said.

[Mr Wragg]

On the point about scrutiny, and following the speech made by the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), who is indeed a member of the Committee that will be scrutinising all of these matters—of which it is my privilege to be Chair—I wonder if the hon. Lady could seek not to correct the record, but to explain? If she is seeking independence of scrutiny, the motion before us and on which we will vote is deficient, because in paragraph (3) it asks that the members of that Committee be nominated by the Committee of Selection, which is entirely in the control of the party Whips.

[Anneliese Dodds]

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) very ably answered that point earlier: she made very clear the basis upon which our demands are being made. I will be very open with the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have considerable respect—that as so many Members have said this afternoon, it is important for all of us that we clear this matter up and are able to call witnesses, including former Prime Ministers where necessary; that we can do so publicly; and that we can do so about the range of matters that this affair raises. I regret to say that the investigation that has been created by Government simply does not do that. That is why we are calling for the approach set out in today’s motion.

[Mr Wragg]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anneliese Dodds]

No, I will proceed with my remarks. The people of this country deserve answers, and they deserve to be treated fairly. That is a point that many of my hon. Friends have made very ably: the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders).

Last year, I was contacted by someone I will call Jessica; I am sure that Members on the Government Benches will have been contacted by many people like her. Before this crisis, Jessica had a modest income, but it was a reliable income. She worked as a self-employed tour guide and in short-term, part-time roles. When the crisis hit, she lost all her income, but she did not quality for any of the Government’s support schemes, and as an owner-occupier, she was knocked out of most support from social security as well. She was angry, upset, and worried about how she as a single parent could support her family. Obviously, as we all know as constituency MPs, Jessica was not alone. The campaign group ExcludedUK suggests that there were up to 3 million people like Jessica: people who simply could not understand why the Government refused to fix support schemes so that they could get help. People like Jessica did not have the Chancellor’s phone number. Last year, Greensill got 10 meetings with Treasury officials; the group representing the excluded got one meeting.

Most of the excluded are still waiting for help, and our country is still waiting for a strategy to support those jobs put at risk by the collapse of Greensill. Indeed, our country has lacked a strategy for steel for 10 years. Last week, I visited the Liberty Steel plant in Hartlepool. I was incredibly impressed by the world-class technology and operation there; by the dedication of the workforce; and, in particular, by the enthusiasm and commitment of the two apprentices I met. Their work is good, decent work, manufacturing materials that British businesses need. It is a world away from the kind of complicated financial structures and share options that seem to have been par for the course for Lex Greensill and David Cameron, but jobs are at risk because of Greensill’s collapse and because of that lack of any strategy for the future of UK steel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) made clear.

To conclude, those steelworkers deserve better, and so do the British public. Government Members know that; they know that their constituents are appalled by new evidence of cronyism and the sleaze that seems to be emerging every day under the Conservatives. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) said, Members should question why they are being asked to defend these events. They should consider the impact that this will have on their integrity. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) spoke of loyalty. Loyalty must be to the public interest, not to partisan friends, a point ably made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake). Government Members should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said, show some backbone. They should vote today for a full, transparent, Parliament-led inquiry to get to the bottom of this scandal once and for all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend did an enormous amount in her previous career to ensure more bilateral trade and investment. The summit was indeed a success, building partnerships with Governments and companies for the future, and that will lead to more trade and jobs in both regions.

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

7. Whether his Department plans to allocate long-term funding to end female genital mutilation.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this matter. I am pleased to say that the UK leads the world in our support to the Africa-led movement to end FGM. In 2018, we announced a further £50 million in UK aid to tackle FGM over the next five years, including £15 million for our programme in Sudan, which is now in its second phase.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will of course be aware that the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation is next week. In that context, and given some of the discussions around the potential reorganisation of DFID, he will understand why some in the sector are worried about whether funding will be retained up to 2025. The relationships underpinning those programmes take time to embed, so will he please give us that guarantee?

[Dr Murrison]

Notwithstanding what may happen with the machinery of government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State just said, I remind the hon. Lady that we are committed—indeed, we are legally obliged—to spend 0.7% of GNI. That is a firm commitment, and she should be in no doubt about it.

We, like her, look forward to the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation on 6 February. We wish it well and entirely agree with its theme of “unleashing youth power”. Following DFID’s success in helping to achieve legal change in partner countries, we look forward to making another further important announcement about how we will work with international partners to strengthen laws, policies and systems to respond to FGM.