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)
17 Nov 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Rooker (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 135 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 309 Noes - 150
Division Vote (Lords)
17 Nov 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Rooker (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 134 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 295 Noes - 150
Division Vote (Lords)
17 Nov 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Rooker (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 141 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 298 Noes - 157
Division Vote (Lords)
17 Nov 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Rooker (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 133 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 296 Noes - 147
Speech in Lords Chamber - Fri 14 Nov 2025
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

"My Lords, in my modest experience of six departments in both Houses of Parliament, I have always come to the conclusion and repeated that Whitehall does not do devolution. By the way, I declare an interest: I live in England but within 10 miles of the border of Wales. Therefore, …..."
Lord Rooker - View Speech

View all Lord Rooker (Lab - Life peer) contributions to the debate on: Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Written Question
Conflict Resolution: Women
Wednesday 12th November 2025

Asked by: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)

Question

To ask His Majesty's Government whether Equality and Human Rights Commission's guidance on single-sex spaces following the Supreme Court decision requires either a general impact statement or a regulatory impact statement; and who makes the decision.

Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)

I refer the noble Lord to my contribution in Hansard, Volume 849, column 1924: debated on Wednesday 5 November 2025: Equality and Human Rights Commission: Draft Updated Code of Practice:

"…the EHRC has not been asked to carry out a full regulatory impact assessment, but rather to provide a minimum proportionate cost assessment to evidence exclusion from a full regulatory impact assessment and enable us to take an informed decision. Understanding costs and impacts is not new; it would have been a consideration in the 2011 code.”

Division Vote (Lords)
11 Nov 2025 - Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Rooker (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 152 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 68 Noes - 169
Division Vote (Lords)
11 Nov 2025 - Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Rooker (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 150 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 201 Noes - 238
Division Vote (Lords)
11 Nov 2025 - Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Rooker (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 147 Labour No votes vs 3 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 89 Noes - 195
Division Vote (Lords)
11 Nov 2025 - Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Rooker (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 151 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 66 Noes - 175