Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Conservatives have failed the Windrush generation twice now: first by denying their rights as British citizens, and secondly by delaying their compensation, as we have just heard again. Labour would sort out the compensation scheme, re-establish the major change programme and Windrush unit scrapped by the Conservatives and appoint a Windrush commissioner to ensure that this kind of scandal never happens again. What is the Government’s plan here?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Almost 2,000 days have passed since the Government first promised to ban conversion therapy, and 533 days have passed since a conversion therapy Bill was promised in the last Queen’s Speech. The delays are not this Minister’s responsibility; according to the press, they are a result of differing views on the Government Front Bench, but because of that there is still no Bill. Can the Minister tell the House whether the next King’s Speech will include a commitment to a full, loophole-free ban on LGBT conversion therapy—yes or no?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Some 1,835 days have passed since the Government first promised to ban conversion practices. That is longer than it takes to make a good Bill—it is longer than it took to build the Empire State Building and the Shard put together. We were told in January that a Bill would be published “shortly”. Seven months later, can the Minister tell LGBT people how many more days, weeks, months, or even years they must wait?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Schools, parents and pupils who need guidance on these issues are sick and tired of reading conflicting rumours about the Government’s plans in the newspapers. Will the Minister confirm that the reason for the delay is that the Minister for Women and Equalities does not agree with the Education Secretary, who does not agree with the Minister for Children, who does not agree with the Prime Minister?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Last year, the gender pay gap was 12% higher than it was in 2020, the year in which the Minister for Women and Equalities was first appointed to the Government Equalities Office. If not the Minister, can anyone on the Government Front Bench please apologise to women for that increase this International Women’s Day?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We now come to the shadow Minister, Anneliese Dodds.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
NHS England figures show that in October 2012, 15 women had been waiting over a year for gynaecological treatment. Can the Minister tell the House how many women had been waiting for that long in October last year?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Following White Ribbon day on Friday, we remember all victims and survivors of violence against women and girls. Last year, only 1.5% of reported rape and sexual violence offences resulted in a conviction. The Minister is right: tackling this issue requires multiple actions, but the Government refuse to take those actions and, sadly, in her responses she was instead seeking to pass the buck. May I ask a straight question? Why will the Government not introduce the following three measures: specialist rape courts, rape and domestic abuse specialists in every police force, and the domestic violence register that Labour has called for?
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Qatar’s record on LGBT+ rights, women’s rights and the treatment of migrant workers means that it should never have been awarded the World cup. Although FIFA’s capitulation over the One Love armband has been shameful, the least that our LGBT+ fans could expect from our Government is advice and support when travelling to matches, yet there is no advice from the Foreign Office or the Government Equalities Office for LGBT+ fans, nor—
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new Minister for Women and Equalities to her place.
With reference to the previous question, I should of course say that making misogyny a hate crime is something the Government have stood against until now, when they have been pushed by a Labour police and crime commissioner in Nottinghamshire, but we hope the tide may be turning.
A moment ago, the Minister referred to some statistics on hate crime, but not the most concerning ones. One was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) when he talked about violent hate crime, which is six times higher today than it was 10 years ago. Hate crimes that are reported are up by 269% in England and Wales since 2010. We have also seen the highest number of religiously motivated hate crimes ever recorded this year. What are the Government going to do about this?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
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”?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Points of Order
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 17 November 2021, the House approved a humble address motion compelling the Government to publish the minutes from or any notes of the meeting of 9 April 2020 between Lord Bethell, Owen Paterson and Randox representatives. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) received an answer to a written parliamentary question that explained that the Department of Health and Social Care had previously released the minutes of the meeting, referring to an attached document containing some heavily redacted notes. But when that very same document was made public in response to a freedom of information request in January 2021, it was with the explicit caveat that they were “draft notes” and that official minutes were not taken and sent to attendees. The Government appear to being arguing with themselves, and not for the first time. Can you offer some assistance to explain whether it is in order for the Health Secretary to describe documents as “minutes” that his own Department has previously denied are minutes? If not, will he be afforded an opportunity to correct the record, explain what status those draft notes have and inform the House once and for all what happened to the formal minutes taken at that crucial meeting?
Points of Order
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Seventy-six days have passed since this House agreed to the terms of a Humble Address compelling the Government to publish the minutes and notes of the meeting of 9 April 2020 between Lord Bethell, Owen Paterson and Randox representatives, and all correspondence relating to two specified Government contracts awarded to that company. Sixty-seven days have passed since the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care promised, in writing, that the Government would respond to the House no later than the end of January. Given that today is 1 February, and taking into account the fact that the Chair has expressed an expectation on the Government to fulfil their obligations under that Humble Address in a timely fashion, is it in order for Ministers to fail to meet a self-imposed deadline to comply with the instructions of this House? If not, what consequences should befall those on the Government Benches who failed to keep their promise?
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State for Health notified me yesterday that he will confirm that the relevant materials will be laid by the February recess. If not, I am sure that the hon. Member would use an urgent question and other ways to ensure that they are delivered, but that is the state of play at the moment.
Economy Update
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Businesses and workers have been pleading for certainty from this Government, but the Chancellor keeps ignoring them until the last possible moment, after jobs have been lost and businesses have gone bust. The national lockdown was announced on Saturday, many weeks after both SAGE and Labour called for a circuit breaker. The Chancellor ridiculed those proposals for a shorter, more effective circuit breaker as a “blunt instrument”. Just a moment ago, he argued that it was only last week when the Government’s scientific and medical advisers presented data showing that the NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed. SAGE presented that evidence on 21 September, so I will give him the chance now to correct the record and state that actually, the Government knew about that evidence many weeks ago, rather than last week—he can intervene on me if he wishes to correct the record. No, he has not done that. That delay in implementing those measures, we know, has cost livelihoods and lives.
When the lockdown was announced, the Prime Minister said that furlough would be extended for a month, five hours before that scheme was due to end. Two days later, realising that the self-employed had been forgotten, there was a last-minute change to the self-employment scheme. Now there are further changes—the Chancellor’s fourth version of his winter economy plan in just six weeks. The Chancellor can change his mind at the last minute, but businesses cannot. We need a Chancellor who is in front of the problems we face, not one who is always a step behind.
Until last Saturday, hospitality workers in the north had to plan on the basis that they would receive two thirds of their previous income—not 80% or 93%, as I think the Prime Minister said, but two thirds for huge numbers of them, because of this Government’s failure to fix flaws in the social security system. The Chancellor said no to those hospitality workers, only to accept their demands today. Ahead of announcing a firebreak, the First Minister of Wales made workable requests that could have offered support for Welsh workers. Again, the Chancellor said no, only to U-turn now.
Labour argued that Scotland should have access to the furlough scheme should there need to be a national lockdown north of the border. Once again, the Chancellor said no, then the Prime Minister said yes—cue another undignified scramble to accept that demand today. How many jobs could have been saved if this Government had recognised reality and let businesses plan for the future? Will the Chancellor apologise to those who have already been made redundant because of this last-minute approach?
Earlier this week, I called on the Chancellor to use the moment of the national lockdown to set out a proper plan for the next six months. Finally, today, he has indicated that furlough will remain for lockdown areas until March, as Labour called for. Of course that is welcome, but many other questions remain. When will he deliver any information about the retention incentive, which Labour has been warning for months is poorly targeted?
By the time we get to March, it will be a whole year since the first economic support package, but there was still nothing in the Chancellor’s remarks for those people who have been excluded from Government schemes until now. What does the Chancellor say to those groups? Will we face another scramble before the end of March? Can he guarantee that we will avoid such uncertainty then—dependent, of course, on the health circumstances? Other countries seem to be able to plan for the future. Why cannot this one?
What is the future of the phantom funding formula, providing a seemingly arbitrary £20 a head to local areas under tiered restrictions for business support? How long will that support last? What happens when it runs out? When will the Chancellor fix social security, so that it stops penalising the self-employed, homeowners and huge numbers of other workers facing hardship because of problems that could be fixed quickly? What are his Government doing to rectify the problems with the £500 self-isolation payment, so that workers receive it when they need it and are not pushed into debt for doing the right thing?
Above all, when will this Government enable all local areas to deliver the test, trace and isolate system, which we know is more effective than the enormously expensive outsourced national system? The Chancellor needs to stop blaming our NHS, as he appeared to do a moment ago, when it is his Government who are still blocking local areas in lower tiers from delivering a more effective service. Our economy is struggling much more than many other countries’, because this Government simply will not acknowledge that, until they get a grip on the health crisis, they will not be able to deal with our economic crisis. Confidence is indeed key, and that is what this Government need to start delivering.
Mr Speaker
We do not have interventions in statements, so if Members are wondering why the Chancellor did not intervene, that is why. It is no problem at all; I am just trying to be helpful.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds
I did not ask the Chancellor about the precise details of delivery and I did not ask about the scope; I asked him about the value of statutory sick pay. He needs to get a grip on this issue. If he fails to do so—and the blockage appears to be his responsibility—then we will see additional localised re-impositions of lockdown, with all the implications that has for jobs and businesses. Please, Chancellor, get a grip on this issue.
There are two other reasons why economists are worried about the UK’s recovery. First, of course, there is concern about our future as a trading nation. Both of the Chancellor’s predecessors warn that the threat to override the withdrawal agreement could damage our country’s reputation and prosperity. Why do those former Chancellors appear to be more concerned about our country’s economic prospects than the current one? The second reason for concern stems from the prospect of premature spending cuts or tax rises. According to the Financial Times, it is politics that could drive the Chancellor towards early tax rises, so will he rule them out for the rest of this year?
Mr Speaker
Order. I do want the Chancellor to answer, but we will have to shorten the questions.
Covid-19: Economic Package
Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your warm wishes.
This Government’s plan is one of the most comprehensive anywhere in the world. We have provided billions of pounds of cash grants, tax cuts and loans for over 1 million businesses, tens of billions of pounds of deferred taxes, income protection for millions of the self-employed, and a strengthened safety net to protect millions of our most vulnerable people. These schemes speak to my and this Conservative Government’s values. We believe in the dignity of work, and we are doing everything we can to protect people currently unable to work.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out our plan for the next phase of the public health response, and today I can confirm the next stage of our job retention scheme. This scheme has been a world-leading economic intervention, supporting livelihoods and protecting futures. Seven and a half million jobs have been furloughed—jobs we could have lost if we had not acted—and nearly 1 million businesses supported who could have closed shop for good.
As we reopen the economy, we will need to support people back to work. We will do so in a measured way. I can announce today that the job retention scheme will be extended for four months, until the end of October. By that point, we will have provided eight months of support to British people and businesses. Until the end of July, there will be no changes whatsoever, from August to October the scheme will continue for all sectors and regions of the UK, but with greater flexibility to support the transition back to work. Employers currently using the scheme will be able to bring furloughed employees back part time. We will ask employers to start sharing with the Government the cost of paying people’s salaries.
Full details will follow by the end of May, but I want to assure people today of one thing that will not change: workers will, through the combined efforts of the Government and employers, continue to receive the same level of overall support as they do now, at 80% of their current salary, up to £2,500 a month.
I am extending the scheme because I will not give up on the people who rely on it. Our message today is simple. We stood behind Britain’s workers and businesses as we came into this crisis and we will stand behind them as we come through the other side.
Mr Speaker
I now call Anneliese Dodds, who is speaking virtually. I ask her to speak for no more than two minutes.
Anneliese Dodds
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I would also like to wish the Chancellor many happy returns.
As a constructive Opposition, we want to work with the Government to ensure that people’s jobs and incomes are protected and the furlough scheme is a critical element of that. Many of the more than 6 million people who are currently furloughed were taken aback by comments made in the media by Government spokespeople suggesting that, for example, people needed to be weaned off an addiction to the scheme. There were many intimations that changes might have been announced to that scheme by the Chancellor, potentially in the media, without the opportunity for proper scrutiny.
I have only heard about these changes in the last few seconds. We will look at them very carefully, but there are some critical principles that the Chancellor surely must follow as he redesigns the scheme.
First, we must acknowledge that people did not want to be furloughed. It occurred through no choice of their own and through following the Government’s advice about the closure of sectors. It is critically important that they are not penalised for that choice.
I welcome the flexibility mentioned. We have asked for that repeatedly; it applies in many other countries. It has been a long time coming, but I welcome the fact that it is occurring now.
That flexibility includes an employer contribution, so the Chancellor needs to provide more information about that employer contribution now. He also surely needs to provide more information about alternatives to the scheme. Other countries have job creation, training schemes and redeployment schemes. We do not have those yet. Will the Chancellor work with me, trade unions, businesses, local authorities and further and higher education institutions to create the support that is so desperately needed?