Information between 4th January 2026 - 24th January 2026
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 |
|---|
|
7 Jan 2026 - Jury Trials - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 284 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 182 Noes - 290 |
|
7 Jan 2026 - Rural Communities - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 328 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 105 Noes - 332 |
|
13 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 323 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 348 Noes - 167 |
|
13 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 321 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 184 Noes - 331 |
|
13 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 334 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 187 Noes - 351 |
|
12 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 336 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 185 Noes - 344 |
|
12 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context Naz Shah 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 - 324 Noes - 180 |
|
12 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 338 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 167 Noes - 350 |
|
12 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 336 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 344 Noes - 181 |
|
12 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 333 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 188 Noes - 341 |
|
12 Jan 2026 - Clause 1 - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 338 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 167 Noes - 350 |
|
12 Jan 2026 - Clause 1 - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 335 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 185 Noes - 344 |
|
12 Jan 2026 - Clause 1 - View Vote Context Naz Shah 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 - 324 Noes - 180 |
|
12 Jan 2026 - Clause 1 - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 332 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 188 Noes - 341 |
|
12 Jan 2026 - Clause 1 - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 335 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 344 Noes - 181 |
|
20 Jan 2026 - Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 331 Labour Aye votes vs 2 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 344 Noes - 182 |
|
20 Jan 2026 - Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 333 Labour Aye votes vs 3 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 347 Noes - 185 |
|
20 Jan 2026 - Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 331 Labour Aye votes vs 2 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 347 Noes - 184 |
|
20 Jan 2026 - Sentencing Bill - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 312 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 319 Noes - 127 |
|
21 Jan 2026 - Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation - View Vote Context Naz Shah voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 299 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 373 Noes - 106 |
| Written Answers |
|---|
|
Flats: Insulation
Asked by: Naz Shah (Labour - Bradford West) Thursday 15th January 2026 Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what steps the Department is taking to ensure that leaseholders can sell flats where external fire risk assessments identify remedial works. Answered by Samantha Dixon - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) Ten major banks and building societies have signed the lenders’ statement on cladding. These lenders have committed to consider mortgage applications for buildings over 11 metres tall, even if a property has building safety issues, provided either the building has funding for works from government or the developer, or the property is protected by the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act, and the leaseholder has completed a ‘Leaseholder Deed of Certificate’ to evidence it.
Officials in my department engage with lenders individually should we receive evidence to suggest a signatory is not upholding the statement.
We are of the firm belief that mortgage lenders should not request an EWS1 form as a requirement to lend on buildings under 11 metres tall, but whether they do so remains their commercial decision and is subject to their individual lending criteria. |
|
Flats: Mortgages
Asked by: Naz Shah (Labour - Bradford West) Thursday 15th January 2026 Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, how his Department ensures lenders comply with guidance that EWS1 forms are not required for buildings under 11 metres. Answered by Samantha Dixon - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) Ten major banks and building societies have signed the lenders’ statement on cladding. These lenders have committed to consider mortgage applications for buildings over 11 metres tall, even if a property has building safety issues, provided either the building has funding for works from government or the developer, or the property is protected by the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act, and the leaseholder has completed a ‘Leaseholder Deed of Certificate’ to evidence it.
Officials in my department engage with lenders individually should we receive evidence to suggest a signatory is not upholding the statement.
We are of the firm belief that mortgage lenders should not request an EWS1 form as a requirement to lend on buildings under 11 metres tall, but whether they do so remains their commercial decision and is subject to their individual lending criteria. |
|
Flats: Mortgages
Asked by: Naz Shah (Labour - Bradford West) Thursday 15th January 2026 Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what support or enforcement the Department can provide where lenders block transactions contrary to fire safety guidance. Answered by Samantha Dixon - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) Ten major banks and building societies have signed the lenders’ statement on cladding. These lenders have committed to consider mortgage applications for buildings over 11 metres tall, even if a property has building safety issues, provided either the building has funding for works from government or the developer, or the property is protected by the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act, and the leaseholder has completed a ‘Leaseholder Deed of Certificate’ to evidence it.
Officials in my department engage with lenders individually should we receive evidence to suggest a signatory is not upholding the statement.
We are of the firm belief that mortgage lenders should not request an EWS1 form as a requirement to lend on buildings under 11 metres tall, but whether they do so remains their commercial decision and is subject to their individual lending criteria. |
|
Highway Code: Publicity
Asked by: Naz Shah (Labour - Bradford West) Wednesday 21st January 2026 Question to the Department for Transport: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps she is planning to take to ensure that any changes to the Highway Code are (a) effectively communicated to road users and (b) enforced. Answered by Lilian Greenwood - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury On 7 January 2026, we published our new Road Safety Strategy, setting out our vision for a safer future on our roads for all. Alongside the strategy, 5 consultations were launched.
Following the consultations, the Department will review the Highway Code and consider what amendments may be appropriate.
Enforcement of the law is a matter for the police who will decide on the evidence of each individual case, whether an offence has been committed and the appropriate action to take. |
|
Highway Code: Reviews
Asked by: Naz Shah (Labour - Bradford West) Wednesday 21st January 2026 Question to the Department for Transport: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, which specific sections of the Highway Code are under review to improve safety for (a) pedestrians, (b) cyclists, (c) motorcyclists and (d) other vulnerable road users. Answered by Lilian Greenwood - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury In January 2022, the Department updated The Highway Code to improve the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, including the introduction of a hierarchy of road users.
On 7 January 2026, we published our new Road Safety Strategy, setting out our vision for a safer future on our roads for all. As set out in the strategy, more work is needed to continue embedding these changes and overall awareness of the Highway Code. We are considering options in this area, and further details will be shared in due course. |
|
Highway Code
Asked by: Naz Shah (Labour - Bradford West) Wednesday 21st January 2026 Question to the Department for Transport: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps her Department is taking to update the Highway Code to reflect the new road safety strategy. Answered by Lilian Greenwood - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury On 7 January 2026, we published our new Road Safety Strategy, setting out our vision for a safer future on our roads for all. Alongside the strategy, 5 consultations were launched. Following the consultations, the Department will review the Highway Code and consider what amendments may be appropriate. |
| MP Financial Interests |
|---|
|
5th January 2026
Naz Shah (Labour - Bradford West) 4. Visits outside the UK International visit to Qatar between 05 December 2025 and 14 December 2025 Source |