Lord Woodley Alert Sample


Alert Sample

View the Parallel Parliament page for Lord Woodley

Information between 18th March 2026 - 28th 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
18 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 157 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 225 Noes - 189
18 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 142 Labour No votes vs 4 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 203 Noes - 148
18 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 157 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 220 Noes - 191
18 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 161 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 231 Noes - 188
23 Mar 2026 - Pension Schemes Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 149 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 77 Noes - 161
23 Mar 2026 - Pension Schemes Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 156 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 241 Noes - 175
23 Mar 2026 - Pension Schemes Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 159 Labour Aye votes vs 1 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 202 Noes - 225
25 Mar 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 143 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 205 Noes - 147
25 Mar 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 143 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 207 Noes - 148
25 Mar 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 143 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 163 Noes - 195
25 Mar 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 136 Labour No votes vs 6 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 266 Noes - 141
25 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 140 Labour No votes vs 3 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 306 Noes - 145
25 Mar 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Woodley voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 140 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 200 Noes - 150


Speeches
Lord Woodley speeches from: HBOS: Fraud Investigation
Lord Woodley contributed 1 speech (33 words)
Thursday 26th March 2026 - Lords Chamber
HM Treasury


Written Answers
Waste Disposal: Birmingham
Asked by: Lord Woodley (Labour - Life peer)
Wednesday 25th March 2026

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the statement by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage on 17 March (HL Deb cols 757–758) that “it is not true that commissioners are blocking a viable deal”, whether they will confirm that those commissioners last year blocked a deal that had been reached between the chief executive of Birmingham Council and the Unite union to end the industrial dispute between the council and refuse workers, and if so, what steps they will take to clarify that point publicly.

Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

We have been clear that the government is not a party to the ongoing waste dispute, and this is a local matter that the relevant parties must resolve. Like all authorities, Birmingham City Council has legal duties with which its statutory officers must ensure compliance, including in relation to equal pay and the ongoing waste dispute. Throughout the all-out strike, Commissioners have consistently outlined that any resolution to the dispute must be lawful, must represent value for money and must not exacerbate unfairness relating to equal pay. Commissioners have also set out that any possible agreement with Unite must be approved through the Council's formal processes.