To match an exact phrase, use quotation marks around the search term. eg. "Parliamentary Estate". Use "OR" or "AND" as link words to form more complex queries.


Keep yourself up-to-date with the latest developments by exploring our subscription options to receive notifications direct to your inbox

Written Question
Buildings: Fire Prevention
Tuesday 2nd April 2019

Asked by: Anneliese Dodds (Labour (Co-op) - Oxford East)

Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, pursuant to Written Statement of 20 June 2018, on Business Impact Target, HCWS776, whether exclusion from the business impact target as set out in that statement applies to the (a) conduct of fire risk assessment and fire safety training across different housing types and business types, and (b) provision of appropriate fire-fighting equipment, fire safety signs, emergency lighting and fire alarm systems across different housing types and business types.

Answered by Kelly Tolhurst

As set out in the Written Statement of 20 June 2018, regulatory provisions, including relevant building regulations, are excluded are excluded from the Business Impact Target if certified by departments or regulators as relating to the safety of tenants, residents and occupants in buildings that stem from, or relate to, Government’s response to the Grenfell tragedy, reviews, inquiries or working groups.


Written Question
Building Regulations
Tuesday 2nd April 2019

Asked by: Anneliese Dodds (Labour (Co-op) - Oxford East)

Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, pursuant to the Written Statement of 20 June 2018 on Business Impact Target, HCWS776, whether exclusion from the business impact target as set out in that Statement applies to all elements of the Building Regulations; and if he will make a statement.

Answered by Kelly Tolhurst

As set out in the Written Statement of 20 June 2018, regulatory provisions, including relevant building regulations, are excluded are excluded from the Business Impact Target if certified by departments or regulators as relating to the safety of tenants, residents and occupants in buildings that stem from, or relate to, Government’s response to the Grenfell tragedy, reviews, inquiries or working groups.


Written Question
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: Procurement
Tuesday 12th March 2019

Asked by: Anneliese Dodds (Labour (Co-op) - Oxford East)

Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to the guidance entitled Procurement policy note 03/14: promoting tax compliance, how many suppliers were allocated contracts by his Department as a result of complying with (a) one and (b) more than one of the mitigating circumstances after failing the tax compliance questions.

Answered by Lord Harrington of Watford

The information can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.


Written Question
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: Procurement
Wednesday 27th February 2019

Asked by: Anneliese Dodds (Labour (Co-op) - Oxford East)

Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to the guidance entitled Procurement policy note 03/14: promoting tax compliance, how many suppliers have been excluded from bidding for contracts as a result of not meeting the criteria in that document in each year since 2014.

Answered by Lord Harrington of Watford

BEIS has not excluded any suppliers from bidding for contracts as a result of not meeting the criteria in Procurement Policy Note 03/14.


Speech in Westminster Hall - Tue 12 Feb 2019
Young Carers Support

"My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. In relation to support, does he agree with me and my local Oxfordshire charity, Be Free Young Carers, that charities are often relied upon to deliver all of this support, and that there is little support from other actors, such as local …..."
Anneliese Dodds - View Speech

View all Anneliese Dodds (LAB - Oxford East) contributions to the debate on: Young Carers Support

Written Question
Limited Liability: Company Accounts
Tuesday 22nd January 2019

Asked by: Anneliese Dodds (Labour (Co-op) - Oxford East)

Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many (a) Scottish, (b) English and (c) Northern Irish Partnerships have been prosecuted each year since 2009 under Section 15.6 of The Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008, for failure to make their accounts available (a) to Companies House, (b) at their Principal Place of Business and (c) through mechanisms provided in other EEA countries.

Answered by Kelly Tolhurst

No Scottish, English and Northern Irish Partnerships have been prosecuted in each of the past three years, the latest years for which information is available, for failure to make their accounts available (a) to Companies House, (b) at their Principal Place of Business (c) through mechanisms provided in other EEA countries.


Written Question
Limited Liability: Company Accounts
Monday 21st January 2019

Asked by: Anneliese Dodds (Labour (Co-op) - Oxford East)

Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what the total contribution to the public purse has been from fines charged to (a) Scottish, (b) English and (c) Northern Irish Partnerships under Section 15.6 of The Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008 for failure to make their accounts available either to Companies House, at their Principal Place of Business or through mechanisms provided in other EEA countries in each year from 2009.

Answered by Kelly Tolhurst

There has been no contribution to the public for fines charged to Scottish, English and Northern Irish Partnerships in each of the past three years, the latest years for which information is available, for failure to make their accounts available either to Companies House, at their Principal Place of Business or through mechanisms provided in other EEA countries..


Written Question
Supermarkets: Restrictive Practices
Tuesday 8th January 2019

Asked by: Anneliese Dodds (Labour (Co-op) - Oxford East)

Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to previous cases brought by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) against retailers under Chapter 1, Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Competition Act 1998, what discussions he has had with the OFT on the treatment of joint working between supermarkets to enable food security in the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

Answered by Kelly Tolhurst

The Office of Fair Trading was abolished in 2014 with its former functions being transferred to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK’s independent competition authority. The Government has regular discussions with the CMA to prepare for the UK’s exit from the European Union.


Written Question
Scottish Limited Partnerships
Monday 26th November 2018

Asked by: Anneliese Dodds (Labour (Co-op) - Oxford East)

Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many Scottish Limited Partnerships have maintained that they are unable to declare their Persons of Significant Control in each month since July 2017 due to the SLP stating that (a) it has no PSC because none of its partners has more than a 20 per cent stake, (b) it has not completed taking reasonable steps to identify its PSC, (c) it has a PSC but the required particulars have not all been confirmed, (d) it has a PSC that is another company or partnership that has no PSC and (e) it declares a non-registrable PSC which is not subject to the PSC disclosure requirement.

Answered by Kelly Tolhurst

The Hon Member raises five points. In relation to the first three, Companies House only holds information for the past 12 months, as detailed in the table below. With respect to her first question the information provided refers to SLPs with partners who have more than a 20% stake, whereas the nature of PSC control is based on partners who have 25% stakes.

Number of SLPs

PSC Statement Type

Nov 17

Dec 17

Jan 18

Feb 18

Mar 18

Apr 18

May 18

Jun 18

Jul 18

Aug 18

Sep 18

Oct 18

(a)There is no PSC (partnership)

1183

1234

1309

1361

1412

1451

1531

1593

1631

1661

1663

1678

(b) The partnership has not yet completed taking reasonable steps to find their PSC

4932

4925

4920

4921

4913

4638

4488

4432

4341

4206

3731

3542

(c) The partnership has identified a PSC but their required particulars have not all been confirmed

722

725

722

712

686

706

728

667

659

650

645

635

In relation to the Hon Member’s fourth point, Companies House is not able to report this information.

In relation to the Hon Member’s fifth point, Companies House do not have figures available for the number of SLPs who have declared a non-registrable PSC. This is an area that Companies House are working closely with civil society groups on to identify possible inaccuracies. Any potential issues that are, or have been, identified or reported to Companies House are followed up to seek clarification and/or to correct filings. Any cases where compliance is not achieved will be considered for possible prosecution action.

There are no SLPs that fall under the Hon Member’s fourth point (point d).


Written Question
Scottish Limited Partnerships: Ownership
Monday 26th November 2018

Asked by: Anneliese Dodds (Labour (Co-op) - Oxford East)

Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many Scottish Limited Partnerships have maintained that they are unable to declare their Persons of Significant Control in each month since July 2017 due to the SLP stating that (a) it has no PSC because none of its partners has more than a 20 per cent stake, (b) it has not completed taking reasonable steps to identify its PSC, (c) it has a PSC but the required particulars have not all been confirmed, (d) it has a PSC that is another company or partnership that has no PSC and (e) it declares a non-registrable PSC which is not subject to the PSC disclosure requirement.

Answered by Kelly Tolhurst

The Hon Member raises five points. In relation to the first three, Companies House only holds information for the past 12 months, as detailed in the table below. With respect to her first question the information provided refers to SLPs with partners who have more than a 20% stake, whereas the nature of PSC control is based on partners who have 25% stakes.

Number of SLPs

PSC Statement Type

Nov 17

Dec 17

Jan 18

Feb 18

Mar 18

Apr 18

May 18

Jun 18

Jul 18

Aug 18

Sep 18

Oct 18

(a)There is no PSC (partnership)

1183

1234

1309

1361

1412

1451

1531

1593

1631

1661

1663

1678

(b) The partnership has not yet completed taking reasonable steps to find their PSC

4932

4925

4920

4921

4913

4638

4488

4432

4341

4206

3731

3542

(c) The partnership has identified a PSC but their required particulars have not all been confirmed

722

725

722

712

686

706

728

667

659

650

645

635

In relation to the Hon Member’s fourth point, Companies House is not able to report this information.

In relation to the Hon Member’s fifth point, Companies House do not have figures available for the number of SLPs who have declared a non-registrable PSC. This is an area that Companies House are working closely with civil society groups on to identify possible inaccuracies. Any potential issues that are, or have been, identified or reported to Companies House are followed up to seek clarification and/or to correct filings. Any cases where compliance is not achieved will be considered for possible prosecution action.

There are no SLPs that fall under the Hon Member’s fourth point (point d).