Information between 15th April 2026 - 25th 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 |
|---|
|
15 Apr 2026 - Deferred Division - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 290 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 299 Noes - 169 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 252 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 254 Noes - 144 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Deferred Division - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 284 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 300 Noes - 101 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 252 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 259 Noes - 136 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 247 Labour Aye votes vs 3 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 256 Noes - 150 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Deferred Division - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 271 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 277 Noes - 158 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Deferred Division - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 274 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 278 Noes - 73 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Deferred Division - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 276 Labour Aye votes vs 1 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 281 Noes - 70 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Deferred Division - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 281 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 356 Noes - 90 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Deferred Division - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 241 Labour Aye votes vs 1 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 301 Noes - 157 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 245 Labour Aye votes vs 4 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 248 Noes - 139 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Deferred Division - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted No - against a party majority and against the House One of 12 Labour No votes vs 237 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 247 Noes - 21 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Deferred Division - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 285 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 291 Noes - 174 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Pension Schemes Bill - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 263 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 277 Noes - 150 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Unpublished Divisions: Crime and Policing Bill (14 April 2026) - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 281 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 356 Noes - 90 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Unpublished Divisions: Crime and Policing Bill (14 April 2026) - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 271 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 277 Noes - 158 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Unpublished Divisions: Crime and Policing Bill (14 April 2026) - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 274 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 278 Noes - 73 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Unpublished Divisions: Crime and Policing Bill (14 April 2026) - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 276 Labour Aye votes vs 1 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 281 Noes - 70 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Unpublished Divisions: Crime and Policing Bill (14 April 2026) - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted No - against a party majority and against the House One of 12 Labour No votes vs 237 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 247 Noes - 21 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Unpublished Divisions: Crime and Policing Bill (14 April 2026) - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 284 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 300 Noes - 101 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Unpublished Divisions: Crime and Policing Bill (14 April 2026) - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 290 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 299 Noes - 169 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Pension Schemes Bill - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 262 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 276 Noes - 155 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Pension Schemes Bill - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 264 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 278 Noes - 158 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Unpublished Divisions: Crime and Policing Bill (14 April 2026) - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 241 Labour Aye votes vs 1 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 301 Noes - 157 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Pension Schemes Bill - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 262 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 269 Noes - 103 |
|
15 Apr 2026 - Unpublished Divisions: Crime and Policing Bill (14 April 2026) - View Vote Context Brian Leishman voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 285 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes Tally: Ayes - 291 Noes - 174 |
| Written Answers |
|---|
|
Revenue and Customs: Staff
Asked by: Brian Leishman (Labour - Alloa and Grangemouth) Monday 20th April 2026 Question to the HM Treasury: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how HMRC will ensure that workforce planning decisions do not incentivise replacement of permanent staff with externally supplied labour. Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury) Customer demand for HMRC services can fluctuate significantly, both seasonally and in response to external events. HMRC uses Managed Service Providers (MSPs) to provide additional, flexible capacity to help manage these types of variations and support performance on customer helplines. Incorporating MSPs into the overall resourcing mix helps HMRC maintain customer service standards, while retaining expertise within its workforce.
This contract was procured through a Government Commercial Agency (previous Crown Commercial Service) framework and meets the stringent controls and standards set by the Agency for Government contracts. This includes ensuring all employment legislation, including National Minimum Wage and Employment Rights Act are adhered to. As Customer Service is skilled work, all suppliers must pay market rates to secure people with the appropriate skills to meet HMRC’s needs.
HMRC are not privatising their services. HMRC will continue to deliver the majority of its customer services through its own customer service staff, and overall HMRC staffing levels are expected to increase over the Spending Review period. HMRC can only recruit to known average levels of customer demand or it risks not providing value for money to the taxpayer. Using mixed resourcing approaches, including MSPs, gives HMRC more flexibility to support customers.
HMRC provides the initial training for the services covered by the MSPs, before approving suppliers to train subsequent cohorts of staff themselves. All operational guidance is developed, owned and updated by HMRC, and HMRC retains full decision‑making authority, with a dedicated team actively managing the partnership.
HMRC is currently in an initial approximately 18 month ‘proof of value’ phase for its use of MSPs and has no plans to publish full staffing projections for MSPs or customer services staff at this stage. Overall the projected cost for 12 months was approximately £23m of resourcing spend. Future workforce decisions will be informed by the outcome of this phase and taken in line with normal business planning and Spending Review processes.
|
|
Revenue and Customs: Managed Service Companies
Asked by: Brian Leishman (Labour - Alloa and Grangemouth) Monday 20th April 2026 Question to the HM Treasury: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether Managed Service Provider staff and HMRC employees will have differing pay, terms, training and progression. Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury) Customer demand for HMRC services can fluctuate significantly, both seasonally and in response to external events. HMRC uses Managed Service Providers (MSPs) to provide additional, flexible capacity to help manage these types of variations and support performance on customer helplines. Incorporating MSPs into the overall resourcing mix helps HMRC maintain customer service standards, while retaining expertise within its workforce.
This contract was procured through a Government Commercial Agency (previous Crown Commercial Service) framework and meets the stringent controls and standards set by the Agency for Government contracts. This includes ensuring all employment legislation, including National Minimum Wage and Employment Rights Act are adhered to. As Customer Service is skilled work, all suppliers must pay market rates to secure people with the appropriate skills to meet HMRC’s needs.
HMRC are not privatising their services. HMRC will continue to deliver the majority of its customer services through its own customer service staff, and overall HMRC staffing levels are expected to increase over the Spending Review period. HMRC can only recruit to known average levels of customer demand or it risks not providing value for money to the taxpayer. Using mixed resourcing approaches, including MSPs, gives HMRC more flexibility to support customers.
HMRC provides the initial training for the services covered by the MSPs, before approving suppliers to train subsequent cohorts of staff themselves. All operational guidance is developed, owned and updated by HMRC, and HMRC retains full decision‑making authority, with a dedicated team actively managing the partnership.
HMRC is currently in an initial approximately 18 month ‘proof of value’ phase for its use of MSPs and has no plans to publish full staffing projections for MSPs or customer services staff at this stage. Overall the projected cost for 12 months was approximately £23m of resourcing spend. Future workforce decisions will be informed by the outcome of this phase and taken in line with normal business planning and Spending Review processes.
|
|
Revenue and Customs: Staff
Asked by: Brian Leishman (Labour - Alloa and Grangemouth) Monday 20th April 2026 Question to the HM Treasury: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when HMRC will publish full staffing projections for Managed Service Provider and HMRC customer services staff. Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury) Customer demand for HMRC services can fluctuate significantly, both seasonally and in response to external events. HMRC uses Managed Service Providers (MSPs) to provide additional, flexible capacity to help manage these types of variations and support performance on customer helplines. Incorporating MSPs into the overall resourcing mix helps HMRC maintain customer service standards, while retaining expertise within its workforce.
This contract was procured through a Government Commercial Agency (previous Crown Commercial Service) framework and meets the stringent controls and standards set by the Agency for Government contracts. This includes ensuring all employment legislation, including National Minimum Wage and Employment Rights Act are adhered to. As Customer Service is skilled work, all suppliers must pay market rates to secure people with the appropriate skills to meet HMRC’s needs.
HMRC are not privatising their services. HMRC will continue to deliver the majority of its customer services through its own customer service staff, and overall HMRC staffing levels are expected to increase over the Spending Review period. HMRC can only recruit to known average levels of customer demand or it risks not providing value for money to the taxpayer. Using mixed resourcing approaches, including MSPs, gives HMRC more flexibility to support customers.
HMRC provides the initial training for the services covered by the MSPs, before approving suppliers to train subsequent cohorts of staff themselves. All operational guidance is developed, owned and updated by HMRC, and HMRC retains full decision‑making authority, with a dedicated team actively managing the partnership.
HMRC is currently in an initial approximately 18 month ‘proof of value’ phase for its use of MSPs and has no plans to publish full staffing projections for MSPs or customer services staff at this stage. Overall the projected cost for 12 months was approximately £23m of resourcing spend. Future workforce decisions will be informed by the outcome of this phase and taken in line with normal business planning and Spending Review processes.
|
|
Trade: Occupied Territories and Western Sahara
Asked by: Brian Leishman (Labour - Alloa and Grangemouth) Tuesday 21st April 2026 Question to the Department for Business and Trade: To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answers of 1 April 2025 to question 41654 on Trade: Occupied Territories and Western Sahara, if he will update that guidance to include the need for consent to comply with international law. Answered by Chris Bryant - Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) The UK keeps its overseas business risk guidance, available on gov.uk, relating to Western Sahara and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) under review and will update it as necessary to reflect relevant international law considerations.
The UK is clear that Israel's illegal settlements and decisions designed to further them are a flagrant violation of international law. The business risk guidance on OPTs states there are clear risks to UK operators related to economic and financial activities in the settlements. We discourage such activity and advise that those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice. |
|
Revenue and Customs: Staff
Asked by: Brian Leishman (Labour - Alloa and Grangemouth) Friday 24th April 2026 Question to the HM Treasury: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when HMRC will publish full staffing projections for Managed Service Provider and HMRC customer services staff. Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury) HMRC is currently in an initial proof‑of‑value phase for its use of MSPs, which is helping to inform longer‑term workforce planning. At this stage, HMRC has no plans to publish full staffing projections for either MSPs or HMRC customer services staff. Decisions about future staffing levels will be based on what is learned from the proof‑of‑value phase and will be taken through HMRC’s normal business planning and Spending Review processes. |
| Early Day Motions Signed |
|---|
|
Thursday 23rd April Brian Leishman signed this EDM on Tuesday 28th April 2026 Seafarers in the Strait of Hormuz 32 signatures (Most recent: 28 Apr 2026)Tabled by: Ian Byrne (Labour - Liverpool West Derby) That this House notes with deep concern reports that around 20,000 civilian seafarers are currently stranded on vessels in and around the Strait of Hormuz due to escalating regional conflict; recognises that these workers, who play a vital role in maintaining global supply chains, including the movement of food and … |
|
Tuesday 28th April Brian Leishman signed this EDM as a sponsor on Tuesday 28th April 2026 International Workers’ Memorial Day 2026 29 signatures (Most recent: 28 Apr 2026)Tabled by: Mary Kelly Foy (Labour - City of Durham) That this House marks International Workers’ Memorial Day 2026; remembers all those who have been killed, injured or made ill as a result of their work; sends solidarity to bereaved families, injured workers and all those living with work-related illness; recognises the vital role of trade unions, health and safety … |
|
Thursday 23rd April Brian Leishman signed this EDM as a sponsor on Monday 27th April 2026 13th anniversary of the Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh 23 signatures (Most recent: 28 Apr 2026)Tabled by: Apsana Begum (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse) That this House marks that on 24 April 2026, it is 13 years since the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Dhaka, Bangladesh, which killed at least 1,132 workers and injured more than 2,500, a large proportion of whom were women in what was one of the worst industrial … |
|
Tuesday 21st April Brian Leishman signed this EDM as a sponsor on Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Strathcarron Hospice 45th anniversary 9 signatures (Most recent: 28 Apr 2026)Tabled by: Katrina Murray (Labour - Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) That this House congratulates Strathcarron Hospice on the occasion of its 45th anniversary, having first opened its doors on 21 April 1981 to provide compassionate care to people living with, and dying from, incurable illness; recognises that the hospice has remained true to its founding vision over 45 years, delivering … |
|
Tuesday 14th April Brian Leishman signed this EDM on Thursday 16th April 2026 37 signatures (Most recent: 29 Apr 2026) Tabled by: John McDonnell (Labour - Hayes and Harlington) That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No. 202), dated 2 March 2026, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 March 2026, be annulled. |