Information between 4th November 2024 - 4th December 2024
Note: This sample does not contain the most recent 2 weeks of information. Up to date samples can only be viewed by Subscribers.
Click here to view Subscription options.
Division Votes |
---|
6 Nov 2024 - Budget Resolutions - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 359 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 373 Noes - 110 |
6 Nov 2024 - Budget Resolutions - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 356 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 371 Noes - 77 |
6 Nov 2024 - Budget Resolutions - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 362 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 450 Noes - 120 |
6 Nov 2024 - Budget Resolutions - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 356 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 383 Noes - 184 |
6 Nov 2024 - Budget Resolutions - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 368 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 400 Noes - 120 |
6 Nov 2024 - Budget Resolutions - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 364 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 454 Noes - 124 |
6 Nov 2024 - Budget Resolutions - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 371 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 401 Noes - 120 |
6 Nov 2024 - Budget Resolutions - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 360 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 378 Noes - 116 |
6 Nov 2024 - Budget Resolutions - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 367 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 400 Noes - 122 |
6 Nov 2024 - Budget Resolutions - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 368 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 455 Noes - 125 |
12 Nov 2024 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 340 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 435 Noes - 73 |
12 Nov 2024 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 344 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 98 Noes - 375 |
12 Nov 2024 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 343 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 93 Noes - 355 |
12 Nov 2024 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 342 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 41 Noes - 378 |
12 Nov 2024 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 344 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 98 Noes - 376 |
13 Nov 2024 - Exiting the European Union - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 338 Labour Aye votes vs 1 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 412 Noes - 16 |
19 Nov 2024 - Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 324 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 350 Noes - 108 |
19 Nov 2024 - Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 320 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 344 Noes - 172 |
27 Nov 2024 - Finance Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 319 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 332 Noes - 176 |
27 Nov 2024 - Finance Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 320 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 112 Noes - 333 |
25 Nov 2024 - Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 320 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 173 Noes - 335 |
25 Nov 2024 - Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 319 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 336 Noes - 175 |
26 Nov 2024 - Tobacco and Vapes Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 317 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 415 Noes - 47 |
29 Nov 2024 - Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted No - against a party majority and against the House One of 147 Labour No votes vs 234 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 330 Noes - 275 |
3 Dec 2024 - National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 324 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 332 Noes - 189 |
3 Dec 2024 - National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill - View Vote Context James Naish voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 322 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 186 Noes - 330 |
3 Dec 2024 - Elections (Proportional Representation) - View Vote Context James Naish voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 59 Labour Aye votes vs 50 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 138 Noes - 136 |
Speeches |
---|
James Naish speeches from: Project Gigabit
James Naish contributed 1 speech (397 words) Tuesday 26th November 2024 - Westminster Hall Department for Science, Innovation & Technology |
James Naish speeches from: Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill
James Naish contributed 1 speech (515 words) 2nd reading Wednesday 20th November 2024 - Commons Chamber HM Treasury |
James Naish speeches from: Oral Answers to Questions
James Naish contributed 1 speech (58 words) Tuesday 5th November 2024 - Commons Chamber Ministry of Justice |
Written Answers |
---|
Poultry: Animal Housing
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe) Monday 4th November 2024 Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether he plans to consult on phasing out the use of cages for layer hens in England. Answered by Daniel Zeichner - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) I refer the hon. Member to the reply previously given to the hon. Member for Wokingham, Clive Jones, on 31 October 2024, PQ UIN 11121 . |
Home Care Services: Finance
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe) Friday 8th November 2024 Question to the Department of Health and Social Care: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps he is taking to ensure that domiciliary care is sustainably funded. Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) The Government is committed to reforming adult social care and improving the quality of care for people in need. That’s why we are taking steps to ensure all adult social care is sustainably funded, including domiciliary care. In 2025/26, the Government is providing at least £600 million in new grant funding for social care, as part of a broader estimated real terms increase in local government spending power of approximately 3.2%. |
A52: Nottinghamshire
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe) Tuesday 5th November 2024 Question to the Department for Transport: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, which organisation is responsible for (a) litter collection and (b) tree management along the A52 in Nottinghamshire. Answered by Lilian Greenwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) Responsibility for litter collection on the A52 in Nottinghamshire lies with the local authorities in the area, in this case that is Broxtowe Borough Council, Nottingham City Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council.
National Highways is responsible for tree management on the A52 in Nottinghamshire, this includes cyclical inspections of trees within National Highways ownership and can include third party trees that are identified as being a significant and imminent hazard to the Strategic Road Network. |
National Highways: Litter and Trees
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe) Tuesday 5th November 2024 Question to the Department for Transport: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps she is taking to ensure that Highways England fulfils its statutory functions for (a) litter collection and (b) tree management. Answered by Lilian Greenwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) The Department for Transport regularly engages with National Highways to discuss its performance and management of the Strategic Road Network. The Office for Road and Rail, as Highways Monitor, also plays an important role in monitoring on behalf of the Secretary of State, holding National Highways to account for its licence commitments to maintain, operate and improve motorways and major ‘A’ roads in England. Should the Office for Road and Rail deem that National Highways is not complying with its statutory functions or the requirements outlined in the Roads Investment Strategy, they may determine that enforcement action is appropriate.
|
Physician Associates
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe) Tuesday 5th November 2024 Question to the Department of Health and Social Care: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will take steps to encourage practices to create salaried GP roles instead of using physician associates. Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) We have committed to training thousands more GPs across the country which will increase capacity in the system and take the pressure off those currently working in the system. NHS England is working to address training bottlenecks so the health service has enough staff for the future and we are providing £82 million to fund the recruitment of over 1,000 newly qualified GPs, via the additional roles reimbursement scheme, so patients can get the care they need. Physician associates (PAs) can make a valuable contribution to patient care providing appointments and performing clinical and administrative tasks as part of the wider General Practice multi-disciplinary team with appropriate supervision. But they must not substitute the role of the GP within general practice. GP practices are self-employed contractors to the NHS and it is largely up to employers to determine how best to staff their primary care network (PCN) or GP practice to best meet the needs of their population. |
Furs: Trade
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe) Wednesday 6th November 2024 Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when he plans to publish the results of the consultation entitled the Fur market in Great Britain, published on 31 May 2021. Answered by Daniel Zeichner - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Ministers are reviewing policies, which will be announced in due course, including the consultation on the Fur Market in Great Britain. Defra is continuing to build the evidence base on the fur sector. This includes commissioning our expert Animal Welfare Committee on what constitutes responsible sourcing of fur. The report that they produce will support our understanding of the fur industry and help inform our next steps.
Labour Government will introduce the most ambitious programme for animal welfare in a generation. |
Parliamentary Debates |
---|
Project Gigabit
41 speeches (8,285 words) Tuesday 26th November 2024 - Westminster Hall Department for Science, Innovation & Technology Mentions: 1: Chris Bryant (Lab - Rhondda and Ogmore) Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), who is right that we need to do something about flexi - Link to Speech |
Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill
43 speeches (15,551 words) 2nd reading Wednesday 20th November 2024 - Commons Chamber HM Treasury Mentions: 1: Mark Ferguson (Lab - Gateshead Central and Whickham) Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) said, is in addition to the £3 billion that has been committed - Link to Speech 2: Tulip Siddiq (Lab - Hampstead and Highgate) Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) in thanking the people - Link to Speech |
Parliamentary Research |
---|
Respiratory health - CDP-2024-0148
Nov. 08 2024 Found: Respiratory Diseases 11 October 2024 | UIN 6728 Asked by: James Naish To ask the Secretary of State |
Calendar |
---|
Tuesday 12th November 2024 1:30 p.m. International Development Committee - Oral evidence Subject: The humanitarian situation in Gaza At 2:00pm: Oral evidence Professor Nizam Mamode - Professor of transplant surgery At 2:30pm: Oral evidence Nebal Farsakh - Spokesperson at Palestinian Red Crescent Society Emina Ćerimović - Associate Director, Disability Rights Division at Human Rights Watch Rohan Talbot - Director of Advocacy and Campaigns at Medical Aid for Palestinians Sam Rose - Senior Deputy Director for UNRWA Affairs, Gaza at UNRWA View calendar |
Tuesday 26th November 2024 1:30 p.m. International Development Committee - Oral evidence Subject: The situation in Sudan At 2:00pm: Oral evidence Will Carter - Country Director, Sudan at Norwegian Refugee Council Alsanosi Adam - Coordinator at Emergency Response Room Claire San Filippo - Emergency Coordinator at Médecins Sans Frontières At 2:45pm: Oral evidence Dame Rosalind Marsden - Associate Fellow at Chatham House Dr Kate Ferguson - Co-executive director at Protection Approaches Dr Eva Khair - Director at Sudan Transnational Consortium View calendar |
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 1:30 p.m. International Development Committee - Private Meeting View calendar |
Tuesday 10th December 2024 1:30 p.m. International Development Committee - Oral evidence Subject: The UK Government’s work on achieving SDG2: Zero Hunger At 2:00pm: Oral evidence Ms Massiye Nyang’wa - Smallholder farmer at Malawi Violet Natembeya - Smallholder farmer at Kenya At 2:30pm: Oral evidence Mrs Melina Mtonga - Executive Director at Find Your Feet Malawi Dr. Shaikh Tanveer Ahmed - Chief Executive at HANDS Foundation At 3:15pm: Oral evidence Mr Brieuc Pont - Special Envoy on Nutrition and Secretary General of the "Nutrition for Growth" Summit at Government of France View calendar |
Wednesday 11th December 2024 2:30 p.m. International Development Committee - Oral evidence Subject: Pre-appointment hearing: Chief Commissioner of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact At 2:45pm: Oral evidence Jillian Popkins - HM Government's preferred candidate at Independent Commission for Aid Impact View calendar |
Select Committee Inquiry |
---|
5 Nov 2024
In Development International Development Committee (Select) Not accepting submissions In Development: call for potential topics of inquiry The International Development Committee has today launched an open call for potential topics of inquiry in the area of international relief and development. The Committee invites proposals on what it could investigate next and why, including what action is needed from the Government. Up to 10 individuals will be selected and invited to present their pitch to the Committee, either online or in person. The role of the Committee is to examine how the Government’s policy and spending supports lower-income partner countries in efforts to eradicate extreme poverty and improve development. A wide range of policy issues fall within our ‘international development’ remit, but the underlying thread is that they are funded by Official Development Assistance (ODA) funding. Areas include: poverty reduction; humanitarian assistance; conflict, stabilisation and mediation; good governance, rights and equality; education; energy, climate and the environment; global health; food security and nutrition; migration; investment, building trade capacity and exchanging expertise in areas such as science and technology; and the availability of international finance to help meet countries’ development goals. The Committee seeks ideas to feed into future inquiries from: civil society organisations, including relief and development NGOs, refugee and asylum charities, faith and community groups; academia, research institutions and think tanks; professional services; international organisations; and the wider public. It welcomes applications from the UK and overseas. We particularly want to hear from those who are typically underrepresented in policy debates on international development, such as those with direct experience on the ground, the more vulnerable in society, or those who bring an interdisciplinary approach to their research. Join the conversation on X using @CommonsIDC |
13 Nov 2024
The FCDO's approach to value for money International Development Committee (Select) Submit Evidence (by 7 Jan 2025) In November 2020, the Government announced a reduction of Official Development Assistance (ODA) from 0.7 per cent to 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI), a “temporary measure” until a set of certain fiscal rules were met. In the 2024 Autumn Budget, the Government confirmed that the FCDO would be held to the previous government’s fiscal rules, with the OBR confirming that these rules, and therefore a restoration of the aid budget, are not expected to be met during the life of this Parliament. With the UK’s aid budget being under further strain due to Home Office spend on in-donor refugee costs, it becomes increasingly important that the FCDO ensures Value for Money on its programme spending. In 2011, the former Department for International Development (DFID) published its Value for Money framework, setting out how the Department defined Value for Money, and how this was integrated within its work. This framework set out that Value for Money in DFID’s programme meant “maximising the impact of each pound spent to improve poor people’s lives”, and outlined the intention of DFID to “improve the Value for Money of all aid”, not just DFID’s own. No similar framework has been published by the FCDO since DFID merged with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in 2020. This inquiry will consider not just how the FCDO defines Value for Money and how this is implemented within its programming, but also its use of financing instruments to ensure that ODA achieves maximum impact. Join the conversation on X using @CommonsIDC |
4 Dec 2024
Humanitarian access and adherence to international humanitarian law International Development Committee (Select) Submit Evidence (by 15 Jan 2025) International humanitarian law includes important rules to facilitate the passage of humanitarian relief such as food, clothing and medical supplies as well as rules on the protection of humanitarian personnel. In addition, UN Security Council resolutions have called for safe and unhindered access for humanitarian personnel. Yet, in recent years there have been concerning trends in the adherence to IHL by combatant parties in conflict. In particular, there are increasingly frequent accounts of cases where the requirements for access to allow the delivery of relief material and the protections for those who deliver it have been ignored. Taking protection of humanitarian workers, the Aid Worker Security Database reports that in 2023, 280 workers died delivering aid. Of the 595 aid workers killed, injured or kidnapped that year, 95% were staff local to the crisis. In terms of humanitarian access, ACAPS assessed that between November 2022 and June 2023, crisis-affected populations in 37 countries were experiencing “extreme access constraints”, up by 5 on the previous period. This inquiry will seek to understand what the UK Government is doing to address the root causes of this problem through encouraging parties to adhere to IHL. It will also examine how provision for the protection and support of aid delivery workers is built into the Government’s funding arrangements with delivery partners. This is an opportunity for the Committee to receive oral and written evidence on efforts of the UK Government in encouraging the adherence to IHL by international actors as well as its own responsibilities to the protection of aid workers delivering UK ODA. Join the conversation on X using @CommonsIDC |
9 Dec 2024
The FCDO's approach to displaced people International Development Committee (Select) Submit Evidence (by 21 Jan 2025) 2024 saw a continuing rise in global displacement, with at least 117.3 million people forced to flee their homes, including nearly 43.4 million refugees, around 40% of whom are under the age of 18. These vast movements of peoples, and the associated costs and disruptions, can cause significant problems in host countries. Building on the work on long-term refugees by the previous Committee, the Committee intends to look at the effectiveness of Official Development Assistance spending on a range of activity aimed at supporting displaced people across the globe. A major topic of the inquiry will be the FCDO’s consideration of civilians at the beginning of conflicts, and whether the appropriate support and assistance is offered. Furthermore, the Committee will investigate the effectiveness of ODA spending on support for people displaced by climate disasters. The Conflict, Security and Stability Fund, now replaced by the Integrated Security Fund, was intended to consider these issues, but questions remain about its effectiveness. Integral to the Committee’s inquiry will be consideration of the drivers that force people to flee and what forms of early intervention work to prevent displacement. Once people become displaced, the Committee wants to examine what happens to them as they leave home and how their return home is facilitated. Across all of this, the Committee will consider whether what the UK Government is currently doing to keep displaced people safe is working. The Committee is also interested in the value for money of ODA spent on housing displaced people within the UK. Finally, the Committee will evaluate Government progress against the recommendations made by the Committee in its May 2023 Report, “UK aid for refugee host countries”, including on Government support for host countries of long-term refugees, such as Jordan. Join the conversation on X using @CommonsIDC |