On Monday 18 March 2024  the House of Commons considered the Lords Amendments to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. I supported all ten amendments, which were all defeated. The Bill will now return to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.  It has recently been reported that the removal of the first 300 asylum seekers to Rwanda will cost nearly £2 million per person. Altogether, this will be £570 million of taxpayer money, and will account for just 1% of the 30,000 asylum seekers who crossed in small boats last year. I want to know what the plan is for the remaining 99% of cases that are ineligible to be processed under the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Lords amendment eight would have required the Government to report on a timetable for removing asylum seekers who have been declared inadmissible under this legislation. We need to see accountability for the creation of the so-called perma-backlog of 56,000 asylum seekers who are stuck in limbo and unable to be processed.

Furthermore, Lords amendment 10 sought to exempt individuals who have worked in support of the UK Government or armed forces from removal to Rwanda. In my view this amendment is driven by a moral responsibility, similar to Lords amendment nine, which would have prevented the removal of potential victims of modern slavery to Rwanda. I also supported Lords amendment 7, which reversed changes to age assessment procedures established by the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in relation to removals to Rwanda. It would have restored the ability of domestic courts and tribunals to consider claims taken on the basis of an age assessment of unaccompanied children. Last year, the highest court in the UK unanimously declared that Rwanda is not a safe country to send asylum seekers to. Lords amendments one to six related to the safety of Rwanda and principle of the rule of law. Crucially, Lords amendment one would have placed a responsibility on the Government to comply in full with its obligations under domestic and international law. Disappointingly, this was defeated by a majority of 78. I strongly consider that this Bill is unaffordable, unlawful and unworkable. It will not fix the chaos of our asylum system.

There was 10 votes and I supported all the Lords amendments. 

 

 

 

The Premier League approached Walsall FC Foundation about a project providing Kits for Schools.  I was delighted to visit and meet the girls team at Caldmore Primary wearing their kit. This also included a Hijab if required.  This was provided in the Schools colours. The girls were excited about football, their kits and an upcoming tournament.  

I visited Delves Junior School on Friday  15 March 2024 to see FerreroUK's unbranded social responsibility programme the Joy of Moving at first hand. The Programme is delivered by Walsall FC Foundation as part of Ferrero's long term partnership with the English Football league. 

The first part of the programme was listening in on a class room based activity where the children learn about the different food groups using the Eatwell Guide. 

Then the children went to the Hall and formed teams where each member of the team picked up cards of each food group.  It was good to see the children active and using their knowledge in a game which made them move. The programme helps children to develop key skills in four major areas, physical fitness, motor coordination, cognitive functions and creativity and life skills.  

The children were also given T shirts. The Joy of Moving is celebrating its 10 year of the programme in schools and want play based learning to be part of the curriculum.

 

There was a vote in the House without a debate on the Wednesday 13 March 2024:

That the draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.

Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024

I voted against it and the votes result was: Ayes: 291 and Noes: 147 but the Question was accordingly agreed

 

On Wednesday 13 March 2024 the House of Commons considered the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No.2) Bill. The Bill introduces a cut in the rate of primary (employee) Class 1 National Insurance contributions (NICs) from 10% to 8% and a cut in the rate of self-employed Class 4 NICs from 8% to 6%. These cuts will take effect from 6 April. I have long consider the tax burden on working people is too high and should come down in a responsible way. Indeed, I opposed a National Insurance increase when the Government was pushing it through two years ago. I therefore support the reductions in NICs that the Bill seeks to deliver. 

However, this reduction in NICs does not change the fact that working people will be worse off – for every £5 that they get back from the NICs cuts, they will lose a total of £10 from a Government tax plan that will leave the average household £870 worse off and that will drag 3.7 million more people into paying tax by 2028-29. The tax burden will continue to rise in each of the next five years and the UK is still set to have its highest tax burden in seven decades.

I am also concerned that the Chancellor set out at the Budget a goal to abolish NICs, with no suggestion of how he would pay for this. This unfunded tax cut of £46 billion would leave a chasm in the public finances. It is a gamble for which working people would be forced to pay the price.  I therefore supported a new clause to the Bill that would have required the Government to set out before the end of the current parliamentary session what the impact on public finances of abolishing NICs would be. I also supported a new clause that would have required the Government to set out its forecasts for the number of people set to pay NICs as a result of the thresholds for payment remaining frozen until 2028. Unfortunately, the Government defeated both of these amendments.

New Clause 1: Ayes: 170 : Noes 292
New Clause 2: Ayes: 169 Noes: 293