Information between 4th May 2025 - 3rd June 2025
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 May 2025 - Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 283 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 88 Noes - 287 |
7 May 2025 - Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 292 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 76 Noes - 295 |
7 May 2025 - Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 288 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 97 Noes - 363 |
7 May 2025 - Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 287 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 160 Noes - 294 |
12 May 2025 - Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 309 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 316 Noes - 95 |
12 May 2025 - Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 311 Labour No votes vs 4 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 90 Noes - 318 |
12 May 2025 - Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 316 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 98 Noes - 402 |
12 May 2025 - Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 306 Labour No votes vs 4 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 87 Noes - 404 |
12 May 2025 - Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 293 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 94 Noes - 315 |
13 May 2025 - UK-EU Summit - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 314 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 321 Noes - 102 |
13 May 2025 - UK-EU Summit - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 317 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 104 Noes - 402 |
14 May 2025 - Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 294 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 366 Noes - 98 |
14 May 2025 - Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 295 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 304 Noes - 68 |
14 May 2025 - Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 293 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 371 Noes - 98 |
16 May 2025 - Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House One of 129 Labour Aye votes vs 200 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 243 Noes - 279 |
21 May 2025 - Immigration - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 242 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 83 Noes - 267 |
21 May 2025 - Business and the Economy - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 246 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 88 Noes - 253 |
22 May 2025 - Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context Kanishka Narayan voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 191 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 195 Noes - 124 |
Written Answers |
---|
Primodos
Asked by: Kanishka Narayan (Labour - Vale of Glamorgan) Thursday 22nd May 2025 Question to the Department of Health and Social Care: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department plans to (a) launch a further review into and (b) consider the potential merits of (i) recognition and (ii) redress for people affected by the historic use of Primodos. Answered by Ashley Dalton - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care) The Government is sympathetic to the families who believe that they have suffered because of using hormone pregnancy tests. An Expert Working Group of the Independent Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) reviewed the available scientific evidence in 2017 and concluded that the evidence does not support a causal association between the use of hormone pregnancy tests during early pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Following a review of the more recent evidence, the CHM concluded in November 2024 that it does not provide any new scientific evidence demonstrating that the medicinal components of hormone pregnancy tests could disrupt a pregnancy. It is not currently the Government’s intention to review the findings of the Expert Working Group, however we are committed to reviewing any new scientific evidence which may come to light. Because a causal link between hormone pregnancy tests and adverse outcomes in pregnancy has not been demonstrated, the previous administration did not ask the Patient Safety Commissioner to look at redress for hormone pregnancy tests as part of the Hughes Report. |
Veterans: Rural Areas
Asked by: Kanishka Narayan (Labour - Vale of Glamorgan) Tuesday 27th May 2025 Question to the Ministry of Defence: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the VALOUR support system is accessible to veterans in (a) rural and (b) remote areas. Answered by Luke Pollard - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) VALOUR is a new commitment to establish the first-ever UK-wide approach to veteran support. It will ensure easier access to essential care and support is available, wherever they live in the UK.
This regional approach, based on a network of VALOUR support centres providing multiple services in one place, together with regional field officers coordinating the provision of local services, will ensure that services are designed to meet the needs of their local communities.
The detailed structures and processes that will underpin VALOUR will be designed in collaboration with relevant partners and further details will be announced in due course. |
Large Goods Vehicles: Concrete
Asked by: Kanishka Narayan (Labour - Vale of Glamorgan) Tuesday 27th May 2025 Question to the Department for Transport: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps her Department is taking to support manufacturers of (a) 44-tonne and (b) all weights of volumetric concrete mixers. Answered by Lilian Greenwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) The Department has supported the transition of volumetric concrete mixer (VCM) operators and manufacturers by providing a 10-year temporary weight exemption, allowing time to adapt to compliant vehicles. The temporary arrangement will conclude in 2028. Existing VCMs will be able to continue operating, but only within the applicable weight limits. |
Mileage Allowances
Asked by: Kanishka Narayan (Labour - Vale of Glamorgan) Wednesday 28th May 2025 Question to the HM Treasury: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether her Department plans to review the Approved Mileage Allowance Payment rates for employees who use their own vehicles for work purposes, in the context of trends in the level of (a) fuel and (b) maintenance costs. Answered by James Murray - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury) Approved Mileage Allowance Payments (AMAPs) are used by employers to reimburse an employee’s expenses for business mileage in their private vehicle. The rates for cars are 45 pence per mile for the first 10,000 miles and 25 pence per mile thereafter. These rates are arrived at after considering a range of factors including:
|