To match an exact phrase, use quotation marks around the search term. eg. "Parliamentary Estate". Use "OR" or "AND" as link words to form more complex queries.


Keep yourself up-to-date with the latest developments by exploring our subscription options to receive notifications direct to your inbox

Division Vote (Lords)
11 Mar 2024 - Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Hayward (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 180 Conservative No votes vs 5 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 217 Noes - 192
Division Vote (Lords)
11 Mar 2024 - Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Hayward (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 175 Conservative No votes vs 4 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 202 Noes - 187
Division Vote (Lords)
6 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Hayward (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 160 Conservative No votes vs 3 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 246 Noes - 171
Division Vote (Lords)
6 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Hayward (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 164 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 228 Noes - 184
Division Vote (Lords)
6 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Hayward (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 167 Conservative No votes vs 4 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 278 Noes - 189
Division Vote (Lords)
6 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Hayward (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 155 Conservative No votes vs 3 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 244 Noes - 160
Division Vote (Lords)
6 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Hayward (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 165 Conservative No votes vs 2 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 265 Noes - 181
Written Question
Parliamentary Estate: Road Traffic Control
Tuesday 5th March 2024

Asked by: Lord Hayward (Conservative - Life peer)

Question

To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker, further to his remarks on 8 February (HL Deb col 1740), what are the 8 'near misses' referred to, broken down by (1) date, (2) time, and (3) location; and how many of those incidents involved pedestrians.

Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Two of the eight near misses referred to involved pedestrians. All of the near misses demonstrate the inherent risk in a mixed-use occupied estate, where it is not possible to segregate pedestrians and traffic, and the importance of a range of mitigations to that risk, including the use, where appropriate, the use of traffic marshals.

Please see the attached table for date, time, and location of the near misses.


Written Question
Parliamentary Estate: Road Traffic Control
Tuesday 5th March 2024

Asked by: Lord Hayward (Conservative - Life peer)

Question

To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker, further to his remarks on 8 February (HL Deb col 1740), whether he has had discussions with the Finance Committee over any possible review of the costs and process of managing the traffic marshals on the parliamentary estate.

Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The Finance Committee considered the use and cost of traffic marshals on the parliamentary estate at its meeting in February. Once agreed, the minutes of that discussion will be available on the Committee’s website.


Written Question
Parliamentary Estate: Road Traffic Control
Tuesday 5th March 2024

Asked by: Lord Hayward (Conservative - Life peer)

Question

To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what assessment he has made of whether the requirement for traffic marshals on the parliamentary estate, which was recommended in the risk assessment as a way to deal with “what can cause people real harm”, means that any near miss involving a vehicle, building or other stationary object is not covered by that recommendation.

Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The Health and Safety Executive advises that near misses should not be ignored or treated lightly, as they can provide valuable insight into how well you are managing health and safety in your workplace. All the reported near misses (including those that involve a vehicle, building or other stationary object) have the potential to cause injury or ill health to drivers, those in the vicinity of the incident, or through the creation of another hazard. Their continued occurrence shows the inherent risk of relatively high volumes of construction and other traffic in a mixed-use occupied estate and the importance of a range of mitigations to that risk, including the use where appropriate of traffic marshals.