On Tuesday 16 January 2024, the House debated and voted on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill :

Safety of Rwanda: Amendment 10, Division 47: I voted No and the result was:  Ayes: 68 and Noes: 529
That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Safety of Rwanda: Clause 2 stand part, Division 48: I voted No and the result was: Ayes: 331 and Noes: 262
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Decisions based on particular individual circumstances
Amendment proposed: 19, page 4, line 11, leave out from “whether” to the end of line 14 and insert
“and in what manner a person is to be removed, or considered for removal, to Rwanda under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023”.—(Robert Jenrick.)
This and other amendments to Clause 4 are intended to remove the ability of individuals to block their own removal through suspensive claims and to limit such claims to rare situations where there is bad faith on the part of decision-makers in relation to decisions as to medical fitness to travel.

Safety of Rwanda: Amendment 19, Division 49: I voted No and the result was: Ayes: 58 and Noes: 525
Clause 4
Decisions based on particular individual circumstances

Safety of Rwanda: New Clause 6 , Division 51: I voted Aye and the result was: Ayes: 262 and Noes: 336
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 6
Changes to the classification of Rwanda as safe
“(1) A Monitoring Committee overseeing removals to Rwanda must be established and maintained in accordance with Article 15 of the Rwanda Treaty.
(2) Section 2(1) of this Act does not apply if—
(a) the Monitoring Committee established under subsection (1) has formally concluded that the Republic of Rwanda is in breach of its obligations under that Treaty,
(b) the Secretary of State has advised against travel to the Republic of Rwanda, or
(c) if a court or tribunal has found the Republic of Rwanda to be unsafe in accordance with subsection (3) below.
(3) On an application for judicial review, if a UK Senior Court determines that credible evidence exists that the Republic of Rwanda is no longer safe on the basis of non-compliance with its obligations under the Rwanda Treaty, nothing in this Act shall prevent a court or tribunal from further considering an application for judicial review brought by an individual so affected.”—(Stephen Kinnock.)
This new clause places the Monitoring Committee for the Rwanda Treaty on a statutory basis, and places conditions on when the classification of Rwanda as ‘safe’ can be suspended in accordance with material conditions and/or non-compliance with obligations under the Rwanda Treaty.

 

S.E.N.D Reform England is a campaign group formed by 12 mothers of children with additional needs and disabilities across England.  They have talked to parents about provision over the last 8 months and have seen the stress and pressure on children and families. At a drop in organised by Clive Lewis MP, the group came to Parliament to speak to MPs in the Jubilee Room. I met with members of the organisation on Tuesday 16 January 2024.

 Their aims:

More SEN schools, SEN provisions and SEN friendly resources within mainstreams;
ECHP deadlines to be met and adhered to;
Adequate SEND training for teaching staff;
Improvement plans and safety values to be revoked with new focus being placed on delivering better quality rather than value
Post 16 offer to be more robust and inclusive with a centralised policy on transport;
Dedicated Minister for SEND education.

To find out more about the organisation visit: www.sendreformengland.com

On Monday 15 January 2024 the Prime Minister came to the House to make a statement and to be questioned for the first time following his agreement with the US to attack the Houthis in Yemen who had targeted ships in the Red Sea. The Prime Minister made the intervention without a motion to the House.   

"Having been born in Aden, I am obviously saddened that the democratic and humanitarian crisis in Yemen over the last nine years has not provoked such an active response against the Houthis. Can I ask the Prime Minister,  who advised the Prime Minister not to come to Parliament? and how will he ensure that the peace agreement in Yemen is actively and vigorously monitored and pursued?"

here is my question:


I was pleased the Prime Minister also increased funding to Ukraine.

The House debated and voted on the Opposition's reasoned amendment and the Third Reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill on Wednesday 10 January 2024. The Bill seeks to prevent public bodies from making procurement and investment decisions - such as direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment, or sanctions (BDS) campaigns - based on their own moral or political disapproval of a foreign authority.

The Opposition tabled a reasoned amendment in the name of Sir Keir Starmer which would add the following text to the Bill:

“this House, while opposing any discrimination or prejudice in the economic activities of public bodies, believing that all such bodies must act without bias or selectivity when making ethical decisions on procurement and investment and recognising the impact selective and biased campaigns have had on the Jewish community in particular, declines to give a Third Reading to the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill because it does not effectively address the problem it rightly seeks to solve, is incompatible with international law and UN Security Council Resolutions, risks undermining support for groups around the world facing persecution, includes needlessly broad and sweeping draconian powers while placing unprecedented restrictions on public bodies to express a view on current and proposed policy and represents a major departure from the UK Government’s long-established diplomatic position on the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Golan Heights, in a way that undermines the UK’s future credibility and capacity to support diplomatic negotiations towards a just and lasting peace in Israel and Palestine based on a two-state solution, at a time when consistent support for that objective is more important than ever.” 

I voted in favour of the reasoned amendment which was defeated  Ayes 228: Noes 284.

I voted No on the Third Reading of the Bill but this passed Ayes 282: Noes 235.

The Bill has now moved to the House of Lords where it will have its 1st Reading tomorrow, 11 January 2024.

 

On Wednesday 10 January 2024, the House debated and voted on New Clauses 5 and 7 to the Finance Bill at its Committee Stage.

New Clause 5 would require the government to produce an assessment of the impact of the Bill’s tax evasion and avoidance measures. The assessment would need to examine whether the capacity and ability of HMRC was sufficient to properly enforce those measures.

I abstained on New Clause 5 which was defeated by a vote of Ayes 18: Noes 300.

The Opposition tabled New Clause 7 which would require the Chancellor to review the effectiveness of measures in this Act to prevent fraud involving taxpayers’ money, and to compare them with other measures that seek to prevent fraud involving taxpayers’ money and the approach taken in other countries. The New Clause would require the Government to be open and honest about what they are doing to prevent fraud involving taxpayers’ money, in terms of the measures in this Bill, other measures more widely and in comparison with the practices overseas.

I voted in favour of New Clause 7 but this was defeated by a vote of Ayes 222: Noes 301.

After the Committee stage, the Bill will enter the Report stage followed by the Third reading in the House of Commons. Once it passes these stages it will move to the House of Lords for its First reading.