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 Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron 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 |
6 Nov 2024 - Budget Resolutions - View Vote Context Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron 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 |
13 Nov 2024 - Exiting the European Union - View Vote Context Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron 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 |
26 Nov 2024 - Tobacco and Vapes Bill - View Vote Context Lee Barron 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 Lee Barron voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 234 Labour Aye votes vs 147 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 330 Noes - 275 |
3 Dec 2024 - National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill - View Vote Context Lee Barron 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 - Elections (Proportional Representation) - View Vote Context Lee Barron 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 |
3 Dec 2024 - National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill - View Vote Context Lee Barron 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 |
Speeches |
---|
Lee Barron speeches from: Oral Answers to Questions
Lee Barron contributed 1 speech (106 words) Wednesday 20th November 2024 - Commons Chamber Department for Science, Innovation & Technology |
Lee Barron speeches from: Future of the Post Office
Lee Barron contributed 1 speech (145 words) Wednesday 13th November 2024 - Commons Chamber Department for Business and Trade |
Written Answers |
---|
Wines: Excise Duties
Asked by: Lee Barron (Labour - Corby and East Northamptonshire) Tuesday 5th November 2024 Question to the HM Treasury: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if she will make an assessment with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade of the potential impact of withdrawing temporary easement for wine on business operations and the UK supply chain. Answered by James Murray - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury) In August 2023 the Government introduced reforms to alcohol duty so that products are taxed in proportion to their alcoholic strength, not volume. The reforms aimed to modernise and simplify the system, to prioritise public health and incentivise consumption of lower strength products. To help the wine industry adapt to the new duty system, the current, temporary duty easement was introduced as a transitional measure, which was intended to allow time for wine producers to adapt to calculating duty based on alcohol by volume. By the planned end-date of 31 January 2025, the wine industry will have had over two years to adapt to the new strength-based system.
The Government publishes tax information and impact notes (TIINs) for tax policy changes. The summary of impacts from the changes to alcohol duty announced at Spring Budget 2023, including the wine easement, can be found here: Reform of Alcohol Duty Rates and Reliefs - GOV.UK |
Business: Taxation
Asked by: Lee Barron (Labour - Corby and East Northamptonshire) Tuesday 5th November 2024 Question to the HM Treasury: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate she has made of the cost to businesses of administering the excise duty system following the end of the temporary easement on 1 February 2025. Answered by James Murray - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury) In August 2023 the Government introduced reforms to alcohol duty so that products are taxed in proportion to their alcoholic strength, not volume. The reforms aimed to modernise and simplify the system, to prioritise public health and incentivise consumption of lower strength products. To help the wine industry adapt to the new duty system, the current, temporary duty easement was introduced as a transitional measure, which was intended to allow time for wine producers to adapt to calculating duty based on alcohol by volume. By the planned end-date of 31 January 2025, the wine industry will have had over two years to adapt to the new strength-based system.
The Government publishes tax information and impact notes (TIINs) for tax policy changes. The summary of impacts from the changes to alcohol duty announced at Spring Budget 2023, including the wine easement, can be found here: Reform of Alcohol Duty Rates and Reliefs - GOV.UK |
Incinerators: Licensing
Asked by: Lee Barron (Labour - Corby and East Northamptonshire) Friday 8th November 2024 Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what guidance his Department issues on licence approvals for incineration plants in residential areas. Answered by Emma Hardy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) The Environment Agency (EA) is responsible for assessing environmental permit applications for new incinerators to operate in England and has a duty to assess any application it receives against the requirements of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (EPR) 2016.
The EA must follow the guidance on determining permit applications which is set out in Section 7 of the EPR Core Guidance and in the EPR Part A Guidance, including for incinerators in residential areas. The guidance documents can be found at the following links:
As set out in the guidance, in England all large incinerators must comply with strict emission limits and the Best Available Techniques (BAT) conclusions for waste incineration. If impacts from an incinerator could cause an Air Quality Limit or Standard to be exceeded for the local area (as set out in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010), a lower limit for the relevant pollutant could be specified in the permit, or the permit may be refused. The EA will only grant a permit if it is satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to any significant pollution of the environment or harm to human health. |
Schools: Transport
Asked by: Lee Barron (Labour - Corby and East Northamptonshire) Wednesday 13th November 2024 Question to the Department for Education: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether she has had discussions with North Northamptonshire Council on school transport fees. Answered by Catherine McKinnell - Minister of State (Education) The department’s home to school travel policy aims to make sure that no child is prevented from accessing education by a lack of transport. Local authorities must arrange free home to school travel for children of compulsory school age, between 5 to 16, who attend their nearest school and would not be able to walk there because of the distance, their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem, or because the nature of the route means it would be unsafe for them to do so. There are extended rights to free travel for children from low income families. Local authorities may not charge a fee for transport for eligible children. Some authorities choose to arrange transport for children who are not eligible, but they are not required to do so. They may also charge for such transport, but this is a matter for the local authority. The department is keen to understand how well home to school transport supports children to access educational opportunities and will be working with our officials on this. |
Imports: Companies
Asked by: Lee Barron (Labour - Corby and East Northamptonshire) Tuesday 12th November 2024 Question to the HM Treasury: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if she will take steps to help protect British businesses in (a) the hobby sector and (b) other sectors from (i) TEMU and (ii) other cheap import companies. Answered by James Murray - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury) Under the UK’s Low Value Imports Regime, consignments valued below £135 can be imported into the UK without incurring customs duty. This is a common provision in customs regimes around the world designed to avoid disproportionate burdens on low value trade. All overseas retailers that sell goods from abroad to UK consumers are subject to VAT at the same rates as domestic businesses. We keep the operation and impact of our policies relating to imports under review. The Government is committed to working in partnership with businesses to deliver sustained economic growth. |
Food: Origin Marking
Asked by: Lee Barron (Labour - Corby and East Northamptonshire) Wednesday 20th November 2024 Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to prevent retailers from misrepresenting the origin of (a) meat and (b) dairy products that are not (i) raised and (ii) produced in the UK. Answered by Daniel Zeichner - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) The UK maintains high standards on the information provided on food labels and packaging so that consumers can have confidence in the food that they buy.
Country of origin information is required for fresh and frozen meat of beef, sheep, goat, pigs and poultry, as well as uncut fresh fruit and vegetables, honey, olive oil, wine and some fish products. The fundamental principles of our food labelling rules are that information provided to the consumer must not mislead and must enable consumers to make informed decisions. Under existing food labelling rules, food that is not of UK origin cannot be labelled in a way, such as with pictures or words, that states or suggests it is of UK origin. This includes the way in which foods are arranged and the setting in which they are displayed.
If processed food products made in the UK provide that origin information to the consumer, the information must also make clear if the primary ingredient is not from the UK e.g. label with 'British cheese made with milk from Ireland’. Shops will often voluntarily label their British cheese, hams and bacon when they are made from British milk and meat, helping shoppers easily identify and buy great British produce. |
Food: Advertising
Asked by: Lee Barron (Labour - Corby and East Northamptonshire) Tuesday 26th November 2024 Question to the Department of Health and Social Care: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what recent discussions he has had with stakeholders on regulating advertisements of products that are high in (a) fat, (b) salt and (c) sugar (i) on TV and (ii) online. Answered by Andrew Gwynne - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care) The Department has engaged with a range of stakeholders on the advertising restrictions for less healthy food or drink, also known as products high in fat, salt or sugar, on television and online. The Department will continue to engage with stakeholders as we progress the implementation of the policy. |
Early Day Motions |
---|
Wednesday 13th November 23 signatures (Most recent: 10 Dec 2024) Tabled by: Lee Barron (Labour - Corby and East Northamptonshire) That this House condemns TGI Fridays’ decision to terminate over 1,000 staff with less than an hour’s notice, without consultation, leaving many workers locked out of their workplaces and unable to access their possessions; urges the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to meet with the dismissed workers; calls … |