Anneliese Dodds tells Marr dealing with anti-Semitism in the Labour party "is more important than any other consideration"

AM: Before we come on to the economy directly, Anneliese Dodds, it’s fairly clear this morning that the prime minister is going to announce a relaxation after this lockdown to allow shops and many businesses to reopen. That is presumably good news that you would welcome and vote for.
AD: Well, it will be good news if we can be moving safely into a different system of restrictions and out of this lockdown. But we’ve really got to learn lessons from what happened previously. There wasn’t sufficient clarity around the previous tier system. We saw economic support lagging some time after announcements made around the tier system. In fact we saw a real series of conflicts actually with local leaders, different areas being pitted against each other. We cannot have that again. I really hope that when the prime minister sets out that plan there will be much more clarity, much more clarity about why different areas might end up in different tiers, what support will be available for businesses, and obviously we’ll look at those plans very, very carefully from that point of view.

AM: There’s a lot of worry, particularly among Tory MPs at the moment, about the future for pubs and restaurants if they’re forced to stay shut between now all the way through to Christmas. Looking at the numbers, what happens is now dependent upon the Labour Party’s votes. Are you going to vote for the government proposals more or less whatever happens?
AD: Well, no, because we need to see the detail of those proposals. As I said, we really expect government needs to have learned from what’s happened previously. All the problems we’ve had previously. We did not have a clear system of restrictions. There was a huge amount of ambiguity. And as I said, the economic support trailed the announcement of those restrictions. That has meant that there’s a situation where we’ve seen record redundancies actually across our country over the last quarter. Businesses have gone bust that didn’t need to, because of those problems. So we expect that the prime minister should provide something far more robust on Wednesday.

AM: So last time round people said that we needed to see the criteria by which these tiers were being decided and there should be local involvement. Presumably that’s what you want. If you don’t see that and if you don’t see sufficient economic support for the new restrictions will you join with Tory backbenchers to vote them down?
AD: We’ll be assessing this very, very carefully, and you’re absolutely right, we weren’t provided with clear criteria around the conditions under which different areas would be moving into these tiers or out of them. We weren’t provided with that clarity around what support would be there for businesses. When you think about the situation for a restauranteur, for example, before that system was brought in you would have had a situation where, for example, an employer didn’t know whether their staff were going to be receiving 80 per cent of their previous wage, 67 per cent, 77 per cent or back to work as normal.
AM: (inaudible)
AD: Well, actually we’ve had so much chopping and changing around this, Andrew, that’s the point that I’m getting at. We’ve had, what, five changes to that initial winter economic plan that was set out by the Chancellor, and when we’ve just got into winter this is not the kind of reports that we should be seeing right now.

AM: Well, let’s talk about one thing we do probably know, which is there’s going to be a freeze on public sector pay increases. Why shouldn’t there be a freeze on public sector pay increases when you consider that people in the private sector, very often younger workers, have actually lost money and lost position compared to the public sector? The public sector through this has done relatively well compared to the private sector. Why not accept that?
AD: Well, I would say first of all that we don’t know if this is exactly what government will be putting in front of us in the comprehensive spending review. Very, very often we see different proposals being floated in the press and they don’t actually come to pass. But you’re right, we have seen incredible pressures on jobs in the UK. Record redundancies in the third quarter, and in fact the worst downturn in the G7. But how do we deal with that? I very much agree with what Paul Johnson just said, the worst possible thing that could be done – the IMF is very clear on this as well – is to put the brakes on hard now, slam the car into reverse, because what would be…
AM: If I could just interrupt for a second. It’s clear, given where the public sector finances are, some tough decisions have to be taken. Freezing public sector pay would save a huge amount of money, 23 billion or whatever it is, over the next couple of years. A massive amount of money. Can I just put to you, as a question of fairness and equity, when you see what’s happened to workers in the private sector, that is a reasonable way to start to make some savings isn’t it?
AD: Well, with respect, that estimation was put forward by a think tank and it didn’t take into account the impact of this on our high streets and small businesses in particular. What this measure would do is it would say to our fire fighters, hospital porters, teaching assistants, that they will have less spending power in the future, that means they won’t be spending in our high streets, they won’t be spending in our small businesses, and that’s a very, very good way of knocking confidence out of our economy at a time when, as I said, the UK is an outlier. Our economic downturn has been deeper than that in the rest of the G7. What needs to be done now by government is to build economic confidence up not shoot it down.

AM: I’m still slightly confused as to whether you think there should or shouldn’t be a freeze on public sector wages.
AD: Well, to be clear, I do not believe that there should be that freeze right now. I think that’s economically very damaging. It’s an irresponsible choice. I believe that it’s wrong for the Chancellor, if that is what he will be going ahead with, to be putting different groups of workers against each other when, as I said, the implication of this for our high streets, for our small businesses, will be very negative because it would knock confidence out of local economies.

AM: Your leader, Kier Starmer, has said that his number one priority is to restore the faith and confidence of the Jewish community in the Labour Party. Do you think that Jeremy Corbyn is the biggest obstacle to doing that?
AD: Well, actually we saw in that EHRC report that this is a problem for all of our party. It’s something that the entire party needs to deal with. We need to get those disciplinary processes sorted out as a matter of urgency. I have to say it’s a matter of enormous shame for our party that we’ve ended up in that situation where the HRC has had to investigate us and make those recommendations. Now we need to ensure that they’re put into pace as a matter of urgency.

AM: A former chairman of the party, somebody I’m sure you know well, Ian Lavery, has said that Keir Starmer has a personal and political vendetta against the former leader Jeremy Corbyn.
AD: Well, I don’t agree with Ian on that. I agree with him on many other things, but I certainly do not agree with him on that. We need to make sure that we demonstrate as a party to the Jewish community that we have learned from that EHRC report, and let’s be absolutely clear what this is about, this is about a political party being investigated having been found not to have stood up for Jewish people, to have not had those processes to root out anti-Semitism. We have got to deal with this robustly. Keir quite rightly has been dealing with it robustly.

AM: But the consequences for the party might be very serious. It’s not just Ian Lavery; the Bakers Union, for instance, has talked about vindictive and divisive attacks and has threatened to disaffiliate. Many people inside the party are talking about Labour descending into civil war. Is it really worth it?
AD: Well, I have to say, for me the really critical thing is to ensure that we’re not in a situation where we’re investigated by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, a body that was set up under Labour, for having had processes that allowed racism to continue within our party. That is more important than any other consideration. We cannot continue like that.

AM: It’s just that for people watching who don’t know the details this seems like a complete mess. Jeremy Corbyn is an MP, he is removed from the Labour Party, or suspended from the Labour Party, he’s then brought back into the Labour Party, but because he’s not given the Labour whip he’s not a Labour MP, so he’s Labour and he’s an MP but he’s not a Labour MP. This looks like a terrible mess.
AD: Well, of course it’s frustrating. I have to say, from my point of view what I really would want us to be doing – and I know that Keir is in this position as well – is actually getting on with implementing those recommendations. This is about much more than any one person, and actually the EHRC said very, very clearly that these processes have to be sorted out so they apply equally to everyone. That’s what we need to get a grip on. Obviously the debate is focused around one person now but it’s got to be about the whole system changing so we can show the Jewish community that they can have faith in us, that we will be able to represent them and that they can be members of our party and do so and feel comfortable in our party. That’s what we need to do.

AM: Anneliese Dodds, thanks very much indeed for coming in this morning.
(ends)