Information between 21st February 2026 - 3rd March 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 |
|---|
|
25 Feb 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 126 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 172 Noes - 148 |
|
25 Feb 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 170 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 213 Noes - 150 |
|
25 Feb 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 127 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 205 Noes - 188 |
|
24 Feb 2026 - Tobacco and Vapes Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 72 Conservative Aye votes vs 13 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 78 Noes - 246 |
|
2 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 113 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 142 Noes - 140 |
|
2 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 113 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 143 Noes - 140 |
|
2 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 139 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 202 Noes - 155 |
|
2 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 113 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 144 Noes - 143 |
|
2 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 110 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 144 Noes - 140 |
|
2 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 136 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 192 Noes - 155 |
| Speeches |
|---|
|
Lord Sharpe of Epsom speeches from: Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026
Lord Sharpe of Epsom contributed 2 speeches (207 words) Wednesday 25th February 2026 - Grand Committee Department for Business and Trade |
|
Lord Sharpe of Epsom speeches from: Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Sharpe of Epsom contributed 4 speeches (948 words) Wednesday 25th February 2026 - Grand Committee Home Office |
|
Lord Sharpe of Epsom speeches from: Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Lord Sharpe of Epsom contributed 1 speech (655 words) Report stage: Part 1 Tuesday 24th February 2026 - Lords Chamber Department of Health and Social Care |
| Written Answers |
|---|
|
British Steel
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer) Monday 23rd February 2026 Question to the Department for Business and Trade: To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of potential litigation relating to (1) asset valuation, (2) debt liability, or (3) interference with shareholder rights, in relation to British Steel. Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip) The Government will always abide by our legal obligations and offer fair treatment to all businesses. This includes meeting our responsibilities under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act. We are currently in close discussions with the owner of British Steel to agree a pragmatic and commercial solution to the current situation. We do not comment on the content of these live discussions. |
|
British Steel
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer) Monday 23rd February 2026 Question to the Department for Business and Trade: To ask His Majesty's Government what progress they have made in designing the compensation scheme required under section 7 of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act (2025) in relation to British Steel. Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip) We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of British Steel. This will include provision for a compensation scheme upon the end of the intervention under the Act, should there be a claim that the intervention caused loss. |
|
Visitor Levy
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer) Wednesday 25th February 2026 Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the cumulative financial impact on hospitality businesses of an overnight visitor levy alongside existing cost pressures, including energy prices, wage growth, and taxation. Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip) The government carefully considers the impact of tax measures on communities as well as on hospitality and tourism sectors. Evidence from international and domestic schemes suggested modest rates have minimal impact on visitor numbers.
Where changes are made to tax policy, relevant impact notes and assessments are published at fiscal events and otherwise as necessary in line with the government’s usual practice.
The overnight visitor levy would be a discretionary power for Mayors, who would be responsible for considering its local economic impact, including on hotels, consumers and visitor numbers. Mayors will need to decide whether to implement a levy, subject to a local consultation on specific proposals. This consultation will inform their decisions regarding whether and how a levy will be applied, and how any revenue is invested in their region. |
|
Visitor Levy
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer) Wednesday 25th February 2026 Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact of an overnight visitor levy on rural and coastal businesses which rely heavily on domestic tourism. Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip) The government carefully considers the impact of tax measures on communities as well as on hospitality and tourism sectors. Evidence from international and domestic schemes suggested modest rates have minimal impact on visitor numbers.
Where changes are made to tax policy, relevant impact notes and assessments are published at fiscal events and otherwise as necessary in line with the government’s usual practice.
The overnight visitor levy would be a discretionary power for Mayors, who would be responsible for considering its local economic impact, including on hotels, consumers and visitor numbers. Mayors will need to decide whether to implement a levy, subject to a local consultation on specific proposals. This consultation will inform their decisions regarding whether and how a levy will be applied, and how any revenue is invested in their region. |
|
Visitor Levy
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer) Thursday 26th February 2026 Question to the HM Treasury: To ask His Majesty's Government what comparative analysis they have undertaken of total visitor costs in the UK versus competitor destinations; and what assessment they have made of the potential impact of an overnight visitor levy on the UK’s relative attractiveness to international tourists. Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury) Visitor levies are common in Europe and the rest of the world. All other G7 countries already have some form of tourism or overnight accommodation levy in place.
On the 26th of November 2025, the Government opened a consultation seeking views on the design of a new Mayoral power to create visitor levies on overnight stays in England. It contained questions on who will be granted this power, which powers will be devolved, the allocation and use of revenue funds, consultation and consent requirements, administration of the levy, its scope and the rate structure. The consultation closed on the 18th of February 2026.
The Government has engaged with the tourism sector through the consultation process. Evidence from international and domestic schemes suggested modest rates have minimal impact on visitor numbers. Mayors will need to decide whether to implement a levy, and, if so, consult on specific proposals. This will inform their decisions regarding whether and how a levy will be applied and how any revenue is invested.
|
|
Visitor Levy
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer) Thursday 26th February 2026 Question to the HM Treasury: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have benchmarked the UK’s overall tax burden on visitors against that of other major international tourism markets prior to considering the introduction of an overnight visitor levy. Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury) Visitor levies are common in Europe and the rest of the world. All other G7 countries already have some form of tourism or overnight accommodation levy in place.
On the 26th of November 2025, the Government opened a consultation seeking views on the design of a new Mayoral power to create visitor levies on overnight stays in England. It contained questions on who will be granted this power, which powers will be devolved, the allocation and use of revenue funds, consultation and consent requirements, administration of the levy, its scope and the rate structure. The consultation closed on the 18th of February 2026.
The Government has engaged with the tourism sector through the consultation process. Evidence from international and domestic schemes suggested modest rates have minimal impact on visitor numbers. Mayors will need to decide whether to implement a levy, and, if so, consult on specific proposals. This will inform their decisions regarding whether and how a levy will be applied and how any revenue is invested.
|
| Live Transcript |
|---|
|
Note: Cited speaker in live transcript data may not always be accurate. Check video link to confirm. |
|
24 Feb 2026, 5:12 p.m. - House of Lords "are legitimate concerns, and Lord Sharpe of Epsom has rightly drawn attention to the epidemic of " Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench) - View Video - View Transcript |
|
24 Feb 2026, 5:01 p.m. - House of Lords "listened to my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom describing what the shopkeeper would have to do, I would love to see what the " Lord Blencathra (Conservative) - View Video - View Transcript |
| Parliamentary Debates |
|---|
|
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
80 speeches (20,774 words) Report stage: Part 1 Tuesday 24th February 2026 - Lords Chamber Department of Health and Social Care Mentions: 1: None I know my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom will make some further points on this issue. - Link to Speech 2: Lord Blencathra (Con - Life peer) I am listening to my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom describing what the shopkeeper would have to do - Link to Speech 3: Lord Stevens of Birmingham (XB - Life peer) I accept that there are legitimate concerns, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, has rightly drawn - Link to Speech |