Information between 9th April 2026 - 19th April 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 |
|---|
|
13 Apr 2026 - English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill - View Vote Context Lord Blencathra voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 154 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 178 Noes - 231 |
|
13 Apr 2026 - English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill - View Vote Context Lord Blencathra voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 137 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 214 Noes - 156 |
|
13 Apr 2026 - English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill - View Vote Context Lord Blencathra voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 124 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 135 Noes - 154 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Victims and Courts Bill - View Vote Context Lord Blencathra voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 188 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 270 Noes - 200 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Victims and Courts Bill - View Vote Context Lord Blencathra voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 183 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 209 Noes - 260 |
|
16 Apr 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Blencathra voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 122 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 142 Noes - 192 |
|
16 Apr 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Blencathra voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 143 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 225 Noes - 144 |
|
16 Apr 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Blencathra voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 141 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 216 Noes - 141 |
|
16 Apr 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Blencathra voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 123 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 186 Noes - 144 |
|
16 Apr 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Blencathra voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 123 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 192 Noes - 142 |
|
16 Apr 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Blencathra voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 123 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 135 Noes - 154 |
|
16 Apr 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Blencathra voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 45 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 115 Noes - 121 |
| Written Answers |
|---|
|
Palace of Westminster: Access
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer) Thursday 9th April 2026 Question To ask The Senior Deputy Speaker what steps are being taken to enable peers expeditiously to get from Millbank House to Peers' Entrance when the pavement is congested, particularly at peak times for tourism. Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble The existing security and access arrangements have been developed to allow Members to move around and between parts of the Estate safely. Black Rod’s Office will continue to monitor this situation, working with security officers and the Metropolitan Police to ensure that these arrangements are operating as intended. Black Rod would welcome any further details on this matter. |
|
House of Lords: Security
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer) Thursday 9th April 2026 Question To ask The Senior Deputy Speaker what is the security justification for the automated door being installed between the Prince's Chamber and Bishops’ Corridor; how many breaches of security in the past year have occurred because that door was not automated; and what steps are being taken to increase the speed of such automated doors on the Principal Floor. Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble While no breaches of security attributable to the absence of automation or access control at this door have been recorded in the past year, the measures have been implemented as a proportionate and forward-looking security enhancement, designed to mitigate the risk of unauthorised access, and form part of a wider programme of work addressing identified vulnerabilities across the Palace. This door is on the line of route for tours, which increases the likelihood and risk that individuals on a tour could leave the line of route via this door and access restricted areas. The weight of these doors, combined with pass readers, makes manual operation onerous. Door automation was therefore required as an accessibility measure to enable the installation of access control. The speed of automation complies with British Standards based on the size and weight of the doors; however, the smoothness of operation of the doors at Peers’ Lobby is not optimal. This is due to the requirement to avoid any surface mounted equipment in this high heritage area, and the complexities of an underfloor mechanism. Overhead door automation systems operate better and are used whenever possible. |
|
House of Lords: Security
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer) Thursday 9th April 2026 Question To ask The Senior Deputy Speaker what is the security justification for the doors between the Moses Room lobby and the corridor to the West Front to be locked with a pass reader; and why they remain locked during divisions. Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble The access control system protects against unauthorised excursion from the line of route into areas of restricted access to non-pass holders. Arrangements are in place to ensure that Members’ ability to access the division lobbies is not impeded when the House of Lords is sitting. Should Members encounter any access issues with doors in this area during a sitting of the House, they should notify the Doorkeepers or Security Officer nearby. Black Rod would be happy to meet with any Members who would like to discuss queries or concerns about access around the Chamber and division routes. |
|
House of Lords: Speeches
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer) Monday 13th April 2026 Question To ask The Senior Deputy Speaker what consideration the Procedure and Privileges Committee has given, if any, to introducing advisory speaking times for speeches at (1) report stage, and (2) ping pong. Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble The Procedure and Privileges Committee’s Third Report of session 2023-24 (HL Paper 73) recommended various changes intended to encourage brevity during the amending stages of bills, including at report stage and during Lords consideration of Commons amendments. It recommended that the advisory speaking time for backbench members during all amending stages should be reduced from 15 minutes to 10 minutes, except where a backbencher moves the lead amendment in a group (when they would have 15 minutes,). It also recommended guidance that members other than the minister pressing or withdrawing an amendment at the end of a debate should be brief. These recommendations were agreed by the House on 19 March 2024, and the guidance is set out in paragraph 4.41 of the Companion to the Standing Orders. The report is available online here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5804/ldselect/ldproced/73/73.pdf and is attached to this answer. The Procedure and Privileges Committee will continue to keep the House’s procedures under review. |
|
House of Lords: Oral Questions
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer) Monday 13th April 2026 Question To ask The Senior Deputy Speaker what consideration the Procedure and Privileges Committee has given to (1) revising paragraph 6.30 of the Companion to the Standing Orders to amend rules in order to reduce the length of ministers’ replies to oral questions, and (2) the publication of a record of the length of members’ questions and answers. Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble The Procedure and Privileges Committee has not considered this specific issue. The Committee keeps the procedures of the House under review, and I am always happy to discuss them with members. |
|
House of Lords: Security
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer) Tuesday 14th April 2026 Question To ask The Senior Deputy Speaker what assessment has been made of the compliance of the access arrangements at the new Peers’ Entrance doorway with the requirement to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble It has been confirmed by an independent assessment undertaken by an accessibility specialist that the Peers' Entrance provides an accessible step free access into the Palace of Westminster in accordance with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and relevant Building Regulations. |