Liaison: Select Committee Report — 14 Jan 2004 at 16:17

Moved, That the 3rd Report from the Select Committee, Session 2002–03, be agreed to. (HL Paper 183, Session 2002–03).-(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

10 November 2003
By the Select Committee appointed to advise the House on the resources required for Select Committee work and to allocate resources between Select Committees; to review the Select Committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees.
ORDERED TO REPORT
Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill
1. The committee has considered a proposal put forward by Lord Joffe that his Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill [HL] be committed to a Select Committee. A paper from Lord Joffe was considered by the committee and is printed at Appendix 1. The committee also heard Lord Joffe and Baroness Jay of Paddington in support of his proposal.
2. The purpose of Lord Joffe's Bill is to allow competent terminally ill patients to request assistance to die. It was the subject of a major debate in the House at Second Reading in June of this year. Almost 10 years have elapsed since the subject was considered by the Select Committee on Medical Ethics which reported in 1994. Since then other countries have introduced such legislation and public opinion in the United Kingdom has become more engaged in the issue. We consider that a Select Committee of this House would be well placed to consider major ethical issues of this kind and accordingly we recommend the appointment of an ad hoc Select Committee upon the Bill. The Bill will have to be reintroduced in the next Session, read a second time and committed to a Select Committee. Accordingly, we recommend that the committee begin its work after the Easter Recess.
Implications of withdrawal from the European Union
3. The committee has considered a proposal put forward by Lord Moran that a Select Committee be established to consider the implications for the United Kingdom of withdrawal from the European Union. A paper from Lord Moran was considered by the committee and is printed at Appendix 2. The committee also heard Lord Moran, Lord Weatherill and Viscount Falkland in support of this proposal.
4. The purpose of such a committee would be to assess the constitutional and legal position, financial, trade and investment implications, effects on foreign relations and defence, and on agriculture and fisheries. The likely positive and negative effects of partial or total withdrawal would then be assessed. We consider that such a committee would not be timely in view of the current Inter-Governmental Conference on the draft Constitution for Europe. The establishment of such a committee is likely to be regarded as a negative intervention in the process by this House and we doubt whether it would be possible to isolate the committee's deliberations from wider political considerations. The resources required to conduct such an exercise would be disproportionate. We do not therefore recommend the establishment of a Select Committee on the implications of withdrawal from the European Union.
Communications
5. The committee has further considered a proposal put forward by Baroness Howe of Idlicote for a Select Committee on Communications. A memorandum from Lady Howe was considered once again by the committee and is printed at Appendix 3. The committee also heard Lady Howe in support of her proposal.
6. When the committee first considered this proposal in February 2002 it then reported:
"The proposed Select Committee would examine a subject on which the House has a great deal of expertise, and which cuts across government departmental boundaries. We believe that it would be a good subject for a House of Lords committee.
"Baroness Howe's proposal is for a sessional rather than an ad hoc committee, to be appointed after the passage of the proposed Communications Bill, probably in late 2003. We would prefer the appointment of an ad hoc committee in the first instance, with a view to making it permanent if it were a success. We will return to the matter with a firm recommendation nearer the time."
We do not consider this to have been a firm commitment and we have reviewed the proposal afresh.
7. The remit proposed for such a committee, it was put to us, might include all broadcasting media, all aspects of the internet and telecommunications, newspaper and periodical publishing, film and video, advertising, and the ownership licensing control and management thereof. In addition to the reasons for setting up such a committee set out in Appendix 3, the forthcoming renewal of the BBC Charter, the consequences of the Hutton inquiry, and questions of foreign ownership were also cited in support.
8. We do not consider that communications has a particular claim to become the subject of a dedicated Lords Select Committee. Furthermore, many aspects of the subject matter have been debated at length recently in the context of the House's consideration of the Communications Bill and in the pre-legislative scrutiny that preceded it. The remit envisaged is also very wide and is more suited to a sessional Select Committee. Upon further reflection we doubt whether the consideration in isolation of a single communications-related subject by an ad hoc Select Committee would be useful; and we are reluctant to recommend to the House that a sessional Select Committee be set up. Accordingly, we do not recommend the establishment of a Select Committee on communications, whether on an ad hoc or on a sessional basis.
Additional Resources for the Economic Affairs Committee
9. The committee has considered a request from Lord Peston for resources to enable the Sub-Committee of the Economic Affairs Committee on the Finance Bill to be set-up at the beginning of the new Session. A letter to the Chairman of Committees from Lord Peston is printed at Appendix 4.
10. The Committee considers that Lord Peston's proposal represents a major departure from the original recommendation of the group on the working practices of the House chaired by the late Lord Williams of Mostyn and which was subsequently endorsed by the Procedure Committee and agreed to by the House itself. This recommendation was:
"When the Finance Bill is introduced into the Commons and published, the committee should begin its work. The committee should report when the Finance Bill finishes its Commons Committee stage, but before Commons remaining stages. The timetable of the committee's work would therefore have to be arranged to fit the legislative timetable in the Commons." (Report from the Leader's group, 2001–02, HL Paper 111).
11. While we appreciate the excellent work of the Sub-Committee on the Finance Bill earlier this session, we do not think that the arrangements agreed to by the House in 2002 should be departed from so soon, particularly in view of the sensitivities surrounding this initiative. The original proposal is due to be reviewed after two Sessions and we take the view that any case for a change in the current arrangement should be considered then. It follows that we do not agree to the first limb of Lord Peston's request.
12. We recognise however that from March to late June or thereabout the Finance Bill Sub-Committee should be able to meet in parallel with the main Select Committee which will no doubt be engaged in an inquiry of its own. We therefore recommend that a Clerk and other resources be provided to allow this to happen.
Pre-legislative Scrutiny
13. The committee took note of the memorandum from the Leader of the House (Appendix 5).
APPENDIX 1
Memorandum from Lord Joffe
Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill
1. BACKGROUND TO THE REQUEST
(a) The issue of assisted dying is of intense public interest upon which there are passionately opposing views within the House, amongst the public, health and legal professions and religious groupings.
(b) The purpose of these briefing notes is not to rehearse the arguments for and against the Bill but rather to outline why I suggest that the House can only make an informed decision on the Bill if it has the benefit of the findings of a Select Committee.
(c) The purpose of the Bill (as amended by the amendments of which I have given notice) is to prevent unbearable and unnecessary suffering by allowing competent terminally ill patients to request assistance to die. The Bill is accordingly very limited in its application. It does not apply to patients who are mentally incompetent nor to any patients who are terminally ill.
(d) Opponents of the Bill, many of whom are concerned that assisted dying is contrary to their religious beliefs, mainly base their opposition upon concern that if assisted dying is decriminalised, the vulnerable members of society will be put at risk and trust between doctors and patients will be destroyed.
(e) In drafting the Bill, it was recognised that there could be risks to vulnerable members of society and to prevent these risks, a range of safeguards was introduced. However, the Bill's opponents argue that these safeguards are inadequate.
(f) Inevitably the views of the Bill's opponents on vulnerability and trust break-down have to be based on conjecture rather that upon fact.
(g) As there is no available experience of assisted dying in the UK, it is natural to turn to the experience of other countries with similar health provision and similar standards of living which have actually implemented similar legislation. The Netherlands and Oregon qualify under all these headings with experience of patient assisted dying going back to the 1980s in the case of the Netherlands and 1997 in the case of Oregon.
However, the supporters and opponents of the Bill have interpreted the experience of the Dutch and of Oregon very differently. The supporters are convinced that the Dutch and the Oregon experience provides positive support for the view that assisted dying does not place vulnerable people at risk and that there is no evidence of a break down in trust between doctors and patients. The Bill's opponents however argue that the Dutch and the Oregon experience illustrates the dangers to the vulnerable and to doctor/patient relationships.
2. BASIS OF THE REQUEST
The House would be immeasurably assisted in making an informed decision on the Bill if a Select Committee had taken evidence and considered the issues set out below:
(a) The current experience of assisted dying in the Netherlands and Oregon and in particular, whether the vulnerable members of society have been put at risk and whether doctor/patient relationships have been adversely affected.
(b) Whether palliative care can in all cases provide the care which will enable terminally ill patients to die with dignity and free of unnecessary suffering.
(c) Whether recent polls that show 80 per cent percent of the public supporting assisted dying accurately reflect public opinion.
(d) Whether the safeguards contained in the Bill to protect vulnerable members of society are adequate and if not, what further safeguards are necessary. The Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on 23 March 2003 was of the view that they were but the Bill's opponents are not persuaded.
(e) The effect, if any, on resources for palliative care if the Bill became law.
(f) The effect, if any, on health staff and the families of patients if the Bill became law.
(g) The different views within the medical profession.
3. CHANGES SINCE THE 1994 SELECT COMMITTEE
The Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics which reported in 1994 recommended that the existing laws which make assisted dying illegal, should remain in force. That was ten years ago and much has changed since then including the following:
(a) At the time there was no legislation similar to the Bill in any other country. Since then such legislation has been introduced in the Netherlands, Oregon and Belgium.
(b) The views of the Select Committee were significantly influenced by what they were told about the Dutch system. In the light of developments in the Netherlands since then, I believe that a new Select Committee may form a different view particularly having regard to the facts that:
the Royal Dutch Medical Association (of which the great majority of Dutch doctors are members), the Dutch Government and the overwhelming majority of the Dutch population strongly support the existing system
the most recent Remmelink Report (an in depth series of reports commissioned by the Dutch Government) published earlier this year found no evidence of vulnerable people being put at risk nor any increases in voluntary euthanasia in the last five years.
(c) Three of the surviving members of the previous Select Committee, Baroness Jay, Baroness Warnock and Baroness Flather now support this Bill. This is particularly significant as it demonstrates that a new Select Committee might well come to a different conclusion from the previous one.
(d) The UK is now faced with the sorry spectacle of terminally ill patients dragging themselves in desperation to Zurich to be assisted to die.
(e) Surveys in the UK amongst doctors have shown that a considerable number of doctors have felt compelled on grounds of compassion to agree to requests by their patients to assist them to die even though this is against the law. This sits uncomfortably in a democratic society where the rule of law should prevail.
(f) Likewise wives who have openly broken the law on assisted suicide in order to assist their husbands to die in Switzerland, have understandably not been prosecuted and hopefully never will be.
(g) The issue of assistance to die is now being looked at afresh by the Council of Europe which had previously expressed opposition to voluntary euthanasia and the French National Assembly has just agreed to set up a Parliamentary Commission to investigate issues relating to the end of life and formulate proposals for addressing these issues.
(h) There is widespread support for the Bill amongst Peers on all sides of the House.
(i) The terms of reference of the previous Select Committee were much wider than what is proposed and most of the other findings of that Committee are not being questioned.
I respectfully submit that having regard to the above there is a powerful ease for a Select Committee, the findings of which would ensure that the House is able to make an informed decision on a Bill of significant importance.
22 October 2003
APPENDIX 2
Memorandum from Lord Moran
Proposal for a Select Committee to consider what might be the consequences of a withdrawal from the European Union
The Head of Research Services in the House of Lords Library has confirmed that there appears to be no "authoritative and impartial report on what detachment from the European Union, in whole or in part, would mean for the United Kingdom". (Dr Victory's letter of 28 July 2003, attached.) It is the view of all those who have subscribed to this paper that a report on this is overdue and that a Select Committee of the House of Lords would be the most appropriate body to produce such a report.
Members of the Liaison Committee will be aware that there is no provision for withdrawal in the existing EC Treaties. The draft treaty establishing a European Constitution does, however, include, in Article 1-59, a procedure for withdrawal from the Union. The text of this article is attached. A House of Commons research paper points out that Baroness Scotland, when a Foreign Office Minister, was asked why there was no provision in the EC Treaties for the free and unilateral withdrawal of member states, as there is for the treaties governing NATO and the WTO, and that she replied: "We see no need for the treaties governing membership of the Union to include a specific provision on unilateral withdrawal. It remains open to Parliament to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, the logical consequences of which would be to withdraw from the EU The terms of such a withdrawal would be for the Government to negotiate with the other Member States." (HL Deb, 11 January 2000, WA 96–7). This paper also records that Peter Hain told the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee in November 2002: "We saw it for the first time as we did other ideas in the skeleton draft constitution which he put forward and we are having a look at it. It may be a good idea that Member States which are so fed up with the European Union are able to remove themselves from it. We need to look at the detail, we need to know exactly what it means."
Against this background our House on 27 June 2003 gave a Second Reading to the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill (HL), introduced by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, which would require the Government to set up an independent inquiry into the implications of withdrawal and to publish the result.
During the debate Lord Moran, a Cross-Bencher, suggested that instead of seeking to get the Government to set up such an inquiry it might be better for this House to do so. He said:
"It is of the greatest importance that we should have a thorough, impartial and well-informed study of what detachment from the Union, in whole or in part, would mean for this country. I do not suppose that this Government or any other that is in sight will do this, although of course they should. I believe that in those circumstances the best way forward might be for us to set up a Select Committee of this House to consider thoroughly and to report on the implications of acting in accordance with Part I, Article 59 of the draft constitution. Such a committee must command confidence and be as balanced and impartial as possible.
"A good precedent was the Select Committee on the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference . . . three Eurosceptics were co-opted to this committee to balance the Europhiles-that is, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and myself as a Cross-Bencher. It worked well and we all signed the report which was, I think, a useful one.
"Such a committee established now could hear evidence from experts in all the relevant fields. A report on these lines, calm, dispassionate and authoritative-would be an enormous help to all those considering our future relationship with Europe and would enable all of us to judge whether withdrawal would be a catastrophe or bring benefits to this country. I commend the idea to the House."
This approach is welcomed by Lord Pearson (who has agreed that if such a Select Committee is set up it would not be necessary to proceed with the further stages of his Bill) and is supported by at least 51 Peers from different parts of the House whose names are attached. These include a former Prime Minister, a former Speaker of the House of Commons, several former senior Ministers and a number of Peers who are distinguished members of the business community.
We think it essential that the Select Committee should command general confidence. It should not be overbalanced by known Europhiles or known Eurosceptics. It should be as dispassionate and authoritative as possible, and this would apply most of all to the Chairman. Its aim should be to shed light on the question, not to generate heat.
In our view it should seek oral and written evidence from the most eminent available experts on all aspects of the question-the constitutional and legal position, financial, trade and investment implications, effects on our foreign relations and defence arrangements and on agriculture and fisheries. It should then set out the likely consequences of partial or total withdrawal, detailing the likely positive and negative effects.
Peers supporting this request: Ampthill, Astor, Baker of Dorking, Beaumont of Whitley, fen, Black of Crossharbour, Blackwell, Campbell of Alloway, Cavendish of Furness, Chalfont, B. Cox, Cuckney, E. Erroll, V. Falkland, Feldman, Forsyth of Drumlean, Glenarthur, Griffiths of Fforestfach, Harris of High Cross, Inge, Kilclooney, Kimball, B. Knight of Collingtree, Laing of Dunphail, Liverpool, B. Mallalieu, Mancroft, C Mar, Monson, Moran, Mowbray and Stourton, E. Onslow, Palmer, Pearson of Rannoch, E. Peel, Pilkington, Renton, B. Saltoun of Abernethy, Sheppard of Didgemere, Shrewsbury & Waterford, Slim, Stevens of Ludgate, Stoddart of Swindon, B. Strange, Swinfen, Tebbit, Thatcher, Vinson, Waddington, Weatherill, DL, Willoughby de Broke.
Enclosures: Letter from Isolde Victory to Lord Moran dated 28 July, 2003
The Draft Treaty Establishing a European Constitution. Text of Article I-59
* * * * * *
Letter from Isolde Victory to Lord Moran dated 28 July, 2003
Withdrawal from the EU
I have been following up your query about whether there have been any authoritative and impartial reports on what detachment from the European Union, in whole or in part, would mean for the United Kingdom.
I could not find any impartial consideration of this question of the kind you proposed for a select committee (HL Hansard, 27th June 2003, col. 561). There have been a small number of pamphlets and journal articles on the subject but none with the balance and range of a Select Committee report.
I hope this is of assistance.
The Draft Treaty Establishing a European Constitution. Text of Article I-59
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention; the European Council shall examine that notification. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The representative of the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in Council of Ministers or European Council discussions or decisions concerning it.
4. The Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, decides to extend this period.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to re-join, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article
APPENDIX 3
Letter and memorandum from Baroness Howe of Idlicote to the Chairman of Committees
(previously published in the First Report of the Liaison Committee, 2001–02, HL Paper 84)
PROPOSAL FOR THE HOUSE OF LORDS TO SET UP A COMMUNICATIONS SELECT COMMITTEE
As you suggested when we spoke last week, I am enclosing details of a proposal, which I'd be most grateful if you could put before the members of the Liaison Committee, that the House of Lords should establish a Communications Select Committee. The idea has arisen in light of the Communication industry's ever widening remit, rapidly growing economic and cultural importance to the United Kingdom, and not least because of the considerable expertise and experience of the industry that exists in this House.
As I explained, I wanted to test the amount of support that might exist amongst the 100 or so peers within that particular group before putting the suggestion formally to your Committee and, hopefully, for the idea to receive wider circulation and debate. So far I have had replies from over half of those to whom I wrote on 14th January, with the vast majority supporting both the proposal and its outlined remit. (I have, of course, been warned that resources for Select Committees are scarce, and that there may well be a queue of equally deserving suggestions ahead of this one!)
Enclosed is both a copy of the letter I wrote to each Peer [not printed], and the paper setting out a reasoned case for the establishment of a Communications' Select Committee. Perhaps, however, I might mention that although the proposal is made now, I see the ideal time to set up such a Committee, if the idea should eventually be approved, might well be when the proposed Communications Bill (due to be debated in the Spring of this year) is finally on the statute book. Up to that point their Lordships' expertise will no doubt be fully occupied with that Bill's Pre-legislative Scrutiny Committee, and with the process of the legislation itself.
I obviously hope the suggestion will gain your committee's approval, and if so, I should be most grateful for advice as to what further steps need to be taken.
5 February 2002
PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS SELECT COMMITTEE
REASONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT
1. Due to almost continuous technological innovation and change in the last 20 years, the whole business of communications is of increasing importance in all our lives, whether as citizens or consumers. Quite apart from its economic importance, we rely on it for information, entertainment and education. It helps mould our culture, our attitude and reaction to events, and we have a vital interest in its accuracy and impartiality-and thus in its ownership, management and control.
2. Moreover, the industry's contribution to the UK economy is considerable and growing at a faster rate than any other part of the economy. The Government White Paper on "A New Future for Communications" reported that UK creative industries generate revenue approaching £60 billion a year, contributing 4 per cent to GDP, whilst the telecommunications industry generates revenues of £3 I billion and contributes 2 per cent to GDP.
3. As another example of the industry's importance, the power of the media to destroy reputation-where inaccurate or biased information is used-is arguably far greater than that of the courts to protect them. Human rights issues for individuals or organisations have, quite rightly, a higher profile since the European Convention of Human Rights became part of UK domestic law. A reformed House of Lords, with an even greater complement of independent peers, could play an increasingly important part in assessing and advising upon the impact of such changes. Moreover, even during the last five years, communication matters have been debated in the House on no less than 21 occasions-not including the time devoted to the current OFCOM paving Bill.
4. These issues become all the more challenging with the spread of international and multimedia ownership. So too because of the overlap between UK controls-statutory, self-regulatory and common law-and those of the European Union; and in other countries from which communications to UK citizens and consumers may increasingly originate.
5. The House of Lords already contains Peers with considerable experience of, and expertise in, the communications industry. (96 have had either career involvement in the sector or have listed communications as a 'special interest'.) A tacit acknowledgement of this expertise is the fact that at least the last two broadcasting Acts have been introduced in the Lords.
6. The creation of a Communications Select Committee, able to require attendance of appropriate witnesses, could have particular value in informing policy development in this area. As an example of this, with the OFCOM Act (and its sister Act, expected later this year), a Lords Select Committee could be especially useful-not least in the assessment, pre and post the BBC's Charter review-of whether the BBC's particular relationship with OFCOM is working in the public interest.
7. The Government's emphasis (in The House of Lords, Completing the Reform) is on using the reinforced independence, expertise and experience of a reformed second Chamber more effectively, but without duplicating or undermining the House of Commons' primacy. Whilst rejecting the setting up of a ". . . nexus of departmental select committees like those in the Commons . . .", the Government sees ". . . the second chamber (as) better placed to examine cross-cutting issues." (P. 11 para 13 in Supporting Documents.) A Lords Select Committee of the kind here proposed, would be addressing exactly such cross-cutting issues as would fall outside the remit of any one Commons departmental select committee.
PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS SELECT COMMITTEE-REMIT.
Possible areas of coverage suggested so far:
-All broadcasting media and telex: radio and television- terrestrial, cable and satellite.
-All aspects of the Internet and telecommunications (including mobile telephones.)
-Newspaper and periodical publishing.
-Film and video.
-Advertising.
Coverage to include ownership, licensing, control and management.
A relatively wide remit may be thought necessary, because of the rapidly developing cross ownership and interactivity-broadband etc-between all methods of communications.
APPENDIX 4
Letter from Lord Peston requesting additional resources for the Economic Affairs Committee
I am writing to you about the resource requirements of the Economic Affairs Committee's subcommittee to which their Lordships gave the task of scrutinising the Finance Bill. When its first report was debated, I indicated to the House that on the basis of this year's experience in future we would do the job in a more systematic and less pressurised way. The subcommittee would be set up immediately after the gracious speech, meeting in parallel to the main committee as it did last time. It would take a first tranche of evidence from witnesses in the period from then up to the budget itself. The witnesses themselves told us that would add to the usefulness of their contributions. This met with general approval from those present at the debate and from others of their Lordships who take an interest in financial and economic matters.
To carry out its task the sub-committee needs a Clerk of its own, special advisers, and some secretarial experience. In essence the purpose of this letter is to ask the Liaison Committee to make available the required resources.
30 October 2003
APPENDIX 5
Memorandum from Baroness Amos
Draft Bills and Pre-Legislative Scrutiny Government Proposals 2003–04
The Government have published nine draft Bills in Session 2002–03. We envisage publishing a similar, or slightly greater, number in Session 2003–04.
The Joint Committee on the draft Gambling Bill will continue its work, to conclude by 8 April 2004.
Draft Bills on Disabled People and a euro referendum have already been promised for next Session. The draft Disabled People Bill has been promised by the end of the year.
A draft Charities Bill and a draft Mental Health Bill (building on the partial draft published in June 2002) have also been announced, though not necessarily for next Session. And the Government have announced that it will endeavour to publish a draft Regional Assemblies Bill in advance of any referendum.
The Government will bring forward further plans for draft Bills, and proposals for what form pre-legislative scrutiny might take if any, through the usual channels as soon as possible after the Queen's Speech.
10 November 2003

rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but with the omission of paragraph 4 and that an ad hoc Select Committee should be appointed without delay to make a brief assessment of the constitutional, financial and social implications of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union and its effect on foreign and domestic policies, including the costs and benefits of continued membership".

On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?

*Their Lordships divided: Contents 58; Not-Contents, 195.

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Not-Content)Minority (Content)Turnout
Con22 37 (+1 tell)28.0%
Crossbench31 14 (+1 tell)26.6%
Green0 1100.0%
Independent Labour0 1100.0%
Lab99 (+1 tell) 254.3%
LDem31 (+1 tell) 151.6%
UUP1 0100.0%
Total:184 5638.0%

All lords Eligible to Vote - sorted by name

Includes lords who were absent (or abstained) from this vote.

Sort by: Name | Party | Vote

NamePartyVote
Lord Aberdare Conabsent
Lord Ackner Crossbenchno
Lord Acton Labno
Lord Addington LDem (front bench)no
Lord Adebowale Crossbenchabsent
Lord Ahmed Labno
Lord Alderdice LDem (front bench)absent
Lord Alexander of WeedonConabsent
Lord Allen of AbbeydaleCrossbenchabsent
Viscount Allenby of MegiddoCrossbenchno
Lord Alli Lababsent
Lord Alton of LiverpoolCrossbenchaye
Baroness Amos Lab (minister)no
Lord Ampthill Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Andrews Lab (minister)no
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsConabsent
Lord Archer of SandwellLab (minister)no
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-MareNon-affiliatedabsent
Lord Armstrong of IlminsterCrossbench (front bench)no
The Earl of ArranConabsent
Lord Ashcroft Conabsent
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-HamdonLDemabsent
Lord Ashley of StokeLababsent
Baroness Ashton of UphollandLab (minister)absent
Viscount Astor Conabsent
Lord Astor of HeverConabsent
Lord Attenborough Lababsent
Earl Attlee Conno
Lord Avebury LDem (front bench)no
Lord Bach Lab (minister)absent
Lord Bagri Conabsent
Lord Baker of DorkingCon (front bench)absent
Earl Baldwin of BewdleyCrossbenchabsent
Lord Barber Conabsent
Lord Barber of TewkesburyCrossbenchabsent
Baroness Barker LDemno
Lord Barnett Lab (minister)absent
Lord Bassam of BrightonLab (minister)absent
Lord Beaumont of WhitleyGreenaye
Lord Bell Conabsent
Lord Belstead Conabsent
Lord Berkeley Labno
Lord Bernstein of CraigweilLababsent
Lord Best Crossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Bhatia Crossbenchabsent
Lord Biffen Conabsent
Baroness Billingham Lab (minister)absent
Lord Bingham of CornhillCrossbenchabsent
Lord Birt Crossbenchabsent
Lord Black of CrossharbourConabsent
Baroness Blackstone Labno
Lord Blackwell Con (front bench)aye
Lord Blaker Conabsent
Baroness Blatch Con (front bench)absent
Lord Blease Lababsent
Viscount Bledisloe Crossbenchno
Baroness Blood Lababsent
Lord Blyth of RowingtonConabsent
Baroness Boothroyd Crossbenchno
Lord Borrie Lab (minister)no
Lord Boston of FavershamCrossbenchabsent
Lord Bowness Con (front bench)no
Lord Boyce Crossbenchabsent
Lord Brabazon of TaraCrossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Bradshaw LDemabsent
Lord Bragg Labno
Lord Bramall Crossbenchabsent
Lord Brennan Lab (minister)no
Lord Brett Lababsent
Lord Bridge of HarwichCrossbenchabsent
Viscount Bridgeman Conabsent
Lord Bridges Crossbenchabsent
Lord Briggs Crossbenchabsent
Lord Brightman Crossbench (front bench)no
Baroness Brigstocke Conno
Lord Brittan of SpennithorneConabsent
Lord Brooke of AlverthorpeLab (minister)no
Viscount Brookeborough Crossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleCon (front bench)absent
Lord Brookman Labno
Lord Brooks of TremorfaLababsent
Lord Brougham and Vaux Con (front bench)no
Lord Browne-Wilkinson Crossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-HeywoodJudgeabsent
Lord Browne of MadingleyCrossbenchabsent
Lord Bruce of DoningtonLababsent
Lord Bullock Crossbenchabsent
Lord Burlison Labno
Lord Burnham Conabsent
Lord Burns Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Buscombe Con (front bench)aye
Lord Butler of BrockwellCrossbenchno
Lord Buxton of AlsaConabsent
Baroness Byford Conabsent
The Earl of CaithnessCon (front bench)absent
Lord Callaghan of CardiffLababsent
Lord Cameron of LochbroomCrossbenchabsent
Lord Campbell-Savours Labno
Lord Campbell of AllowayCon (front bench)aye
Lord Campbell of CroyConabsent
The Archbishop of CanterburyBishopabsent
Lord Carey of CliftonCrossbenchabsent
Lord Carlile of BerriewLDemno
Lord Carlisle of BucklowConabsent
Baroness Carnegy of LourConno
Lord Carr of HadleyConabsent
Lord Carrington Conabsent
Lord Carswell Crossbenchabsent
Lord Carter Lab (minister)no
Lord Cavendish of FurnessConabsent
Lord Chadlington Conabsent
Lord Chalfont Crossbench (front bench)aye
Baroness Chalker of WallaseyConabsent
Lord Chan Crossbenchno
Viscount Chandos Lab (minister)no
Lord Chapple Crossbenchabsent
The Bishop of ChelmsfordBishopabsent
The Bishop of ChesterBishopabsent
Lord Chilver Conabsent
Lord Chitnis Crossbenchabsent
The Marquess of CholmondeleyCrossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Chorley Crossbenchabsent
Lord Christopher Lab (minister)no
Lord Clarke of HampsteadLabno
Lord Clark of KempstonConabsent
Lord Clark of WindermereLabno
Lord Clement-Jones LDemno
Lord Clinton-Davis Labno
Lord Clyde Crossbenchabsent
Lord Cobbold Crossbench (front bench)no
Lord Cockfield Conabsent
Lord Coe Conabsent
Baroness Cohen of PimlicoLab (minister)no
Viscount Colville of CulrossCrossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Colwyn Conaye
Lord Condon Crossbenchabsent
Lord Constantine of StanmoreConabsent
Lord Cooke of IslandreaghCrossbenchaye
Lord Cooke of ThorndonCrossbenchabsent
Lord Cope of BerkeleyCon (front bench)absent
Lord Corbett of Castle ValeLabno
The Earl of CourtownConabsent
The Bishop of CoventryBishopabsent
Baroness Cox Conaye
Viscount Craigavon Crossbench (front bench)no
Lord Craig of RadleyCrossbench (front bench)no
Lord Crathorne Con (front bench)absent
The Earl of Crawford and BalcarresConabsent
Baroness Crawley Lab (minister)no
Lord Crickhowell Conabsent
Lord Croham Crossbenchno
Lord Cuckney Conabsent
Lord Cullen of WhitekirkCrossbenchabsent
Baroness Cumberlege Conabsent
Lord Currie of MaryleboneCrossbenchabsent
Lord Dahrendorf LDemabsent
Baroness Darcy de Knayth Crossbenchno
Baroness David Labno
Lord Davies of CoityLababsent
Lord Davies of OldhamLab (minister)no
Lord Dean of HarptreeConabsent
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-FyldeLabno
Lord Dearing Crossbenchabsent
Lord Deedes Conabsent
Baroness Delacourt-Smith of AlterynLababsent
Lord Denham Con (front bench)absent
The Bishop of DerbyBishopabsent
Lord Desai Lab (minister)absent
Lord Dholakia LDem (front bench)no
Lord Diamond Lababsent
Lord Dixon Lab (minister)aye
Lord Dixon-Smith Conabsent
Lord Donaldson of LymingtonCrossbenchno
Lord Donoughue Lab (minister)absent
Lord Dubs Lab (minister)no
The Earl of DundeeCon (front bench)absent
Baroness Dunn Crossbenchabsent
The Bishop of DurhamBishopabsent
Lord Eames Crossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Eatwell Lababsent
Baroness Eccles of MoultonConabsent
Lord Eden of WintonConaye
Lord Elder Lab (minister)absent
Lord Elis-Thomas Crossbench (front bench)absent
Baroness Elles Conabsent
Lord Elliott of MorpethConabsent
Lord Elton Con (front bench)aye
Lord Elystan-Morgan Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Emerton Crossbench (front bench)absent
The Earl of ErrollCrossbench (front bench)aye
Lord Evans of ParksideLababsent
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingLab (minister)no
Lord Evans of WatfordLababsent
Lord Ewing of KirkfordLababsent
Lord Ezra LDemabsent
Lord Falconer of ThorotonLab (minister)no
Baroness Falkender Labno
Viscount Falkland LDem (front bench)aye
Baroness Farrington of RibbletonLab (minister)no
Lord Faulkner of WorcesterLab (minister)no
Lord Fearn LDemabsent
Lord Feldman Conaye
Lord Fellowes Crossbench (front bench)absent
Earl Ferrers Con (front bench)absent
Lord Filkin Lab (minister)no
Baroness Finlay of LlandaffCrossbench (front bench)absent
Baroness Fisher of RednalLababsent
Lord Fitt Independent Socialistabsent
Baroness Flather Conabsent
Lord Flowers Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Fookes Con (front bench)absent
Lord Forsyth of DrumleanCon (front bench)absent
Lord Forte Conabsent
Lord Foster of Thames BankCrossbenchabsent
Lord Fowler Conaye
Lord Fraser of CarmyllieConabsent
Lord Freeman Conabsent
Lord Freyberg Crossbenchabsent
Lord Fyfe of FairfieldLababsent
Baroness Gale Lab (minister)no
Baroness Gardner of ParkesCon (front bench)absent
Lord Garel-Jones Conabsent
Lord Gavron Lababsent
Lord Geddes Con (front bench)absent
Lord Geraint LDemabsent
Lord Gibson Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Gibson of Market RasenLab (minister)no
Lord Gilbert Lababsent
Lord Gilmour of CraigmillarConabsent
Lord Glenamara Lababsent
Lord Glenarthur Conaye
Lord Glentoran Conno
Lord Goff of ChieveleyCrossbenchabsent
Baroness Golding Lab (minister)no
Lord Goldsmith Lab (minister)no
Lord Goodhart LDem (front bench)no
Lord Gordon of StrathblaneLabno
Viscount Goschen Conabsent
Baroness Goudie Lab (minister)no
Baroness Gould of PotternewtonLab (minister)tellno
Lord Grabiner Labno
Lord Graham of EdmontonLab (minister)no
Lord Grantchester Labno
Lord Gray of ContinConno
Lord Greaves LDem (front bench)no
Lord Greene of Harrow WealdLababsent
Baroness Greenfield Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Greengross Crossbenchno
Lord Greenway Crossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Gregson Labno
Lord Grenfell Non-affiliated (front bench)absent
Lord Griffiths Crossbenchabsent
Lord Griffiths of FforestfachConabsent
Lord Grocott Lab (minister)no
Lord Guthrie of CraigiebankCrossbenchabsent
Lord Habgood Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Hale of RichmondJudgeabsent
Baroness Hamwee LDemabsent
Baroness Hanham Conabsent
Lord Hannay of ChiswickCrossbench (front bench)no
Lord Hanningfield Conabsent
Lord Hanson Conabsent
Lord Hardie Judgeabsent
Lord Harris of HaringeyLabno
Lord Harris of High CrossCrossbenchabsent
Lord Harrison Lab (minister)no
Lord Harris of PeckhamConabsent
Baroness Harris of RichmondLDem (front bench)no
Lord Haskel Lab (minister)absent
Lord Haskins Lababsent
Lord Hattersley Lababsent
Lord Hayhoe Conno
Baroness Hayman Lab (minister)no
Lord Healey Lababsent
Lord Henley Conabsent
Lord Heseltine Conabsent
Lord Higgins Conabsent
Lord Hill-Norton Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Hilton of EggardonLab (minister)absent
Lord Hobhouse of WoodboroughCrossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Hodgson of Astley AbbottsConaye
Lord Hoffmann Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Hogg Conabsent
Lord Hogg of CumbernauldLabno
Lord Hollick Lababsent
Baroness Hollis of HeighamLab (minister)no
Lord Holme of CheltenhamLDemno
The Earl of HomeConabsent
Baroness Hooper Con (front bench)absent
Lord Hooson LDemno
Lord Hope of CraigheadJudgeabsent
Baroness Howarth of BrecklandCrossbenchno
Earl Howe Conabsent
Lord Howe of AberavonCon (front bench)no
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbenchno
Lord Howell of GuildfordCon (front bench)absent
Baroness Howells of St DavidsLab (minister)no
Lord Howie of TroonLabno
Lord Hoyle Lab (minister)no
Lord Hughes of WoodsideLabno
Lord Hunt of ChestertonLab (minister)absent
Lord Hunt of Kings HeathLab (minister)no
Lord Hunt of TanworthCrossbenchabsent
Lord Hunt of WirralCon (front bench)absent
Lord Hurd of WestwellConabsent
Lord Hussey of North BradleyCrossbenchno
Lord Hutchinson of LullingtonLDemabsent
Lord Hutton Crossbenchabsent
Lord Hylton Crossbenchabsent
Lord Imbert Crossbenchabsent
Lord Inge Crossbenchabsent
Lord Inglewood Conabsent
Lord Irvine of LairgLababsent
Lord Jacobs LDemabsent
Baroness James of Holland ParkConabsent
Lord Janner of BraunstoneLab (minister)no
Lord Jauncey of TullichettleCrossbenchaye
Baroness Jay of PaddingtonLabno
Baroness Jeger Labno
Earl Jellicoe Conabsent
Lord Jenkin of RodingConabsent
Lord Jenkins of PutneyLababsent
Lord Joffe Crossbenchno
Lord Jones Labno
Lord Jopling Con (front bench)absent
Lord Jordan Labno
Lord Judd Lab (minister)no
Lord Keith of CastleacreConabsent
Lord Kelvedon Conabsent
Baroness Kennedy of The ShawsLababsent
Lord Kilclooney Crossbenchaye
Lord Kilpatrick of KincraigCrossbenchabsent
Lord Kimball Con (front bench)aye
Lord King of BridgwaterConabsent
Lord Kingsdown Crossbenchabsent
Lord Kingsland Conabsent
Lord King of WartnabyConabsent
Lord King of West BromwichLabno
Lord Kirkham Con (front bench)absent
Lord Kirkhill Labno
Baroness Knight of CollingtreeConaye
Lord Knights Crossbenchabsent
Lord Laing of DunphailConabsent
Lord Laird Crossbenchabsent
Lord Laming Crossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Lamont of LerwickConabsent
Lord Lane Crossbenchabsent
Lord Lane of HorsellConabsent
Lord Lang of MonktonCon (front bench)absent
Lord Lawson of BlabyConabsent
Lord Layard Lababsent
Lord Lea of CrondallLab (minister)no
The Bishop of LeicesterBishopabsent
Lord Lester of Herne HillLDem (front bench)no
Lord Levene of PortsokenCrossbenchabsent
Lord Levy Lababsent
Lord Lewis of NewnhamCrossbench (front bench)absent
The Earl of LindsayConabsent
Baroness Linklater of ButterstoneLDemabsent
Lord Lipsey Labno
The Earl of ListowelCrossbenchno
The Bishop of LiverpoolBishopabsent
The Earl of LiverpoolConaye
Lord Livsey of TalgarthLDemno
Lord Lloyd-Webber Conabsent
Lord Lloyd of BerwickCrossbench (front bench)no
Baroness Lloyd of HighburyCrossbenchabsent
Baroness Lockwood Labno
Lord Lofthouse of PontefractLabno
The Bishop of LondonBishopabsent
Lord Lucas Conabsent
Lord Luce Crossbench (front bench)absent
Baroness Ludford LDemabsent
Lord Luke Con (front bench)absent
Lord Lyell Conabsent
Lord Macaulay of BragarOtherabsent
Lord Macdonald of TradestonLabno
Lord Macfarlane of BearsdenConabsent
Lord MacGregor of Pulham MarketCon (front bench)no
Lord Mackay of ClashfernCon (front bench)absent
Lord Mackay of DrumadoonJudgeabsent
Lord MacKenzie of CulkeinLabno
Lord Mackenzie of FramwellgateLabno
Lord Mackie of BenshieLDemno
Lord MacLaurin of KnebworthConabsent
Lord Maclennan of RogartLDem (front bench)no
Baroness Maddock LDem (front bench)absent
Lord Maginnis of DrumglassCrossbenchabsent
Baroness Mallalieu Lab (minister)absent
The Bishop of ManchesterBishopabsent
Lord Mancroft Con (front bench)absent
The Countess of MarCrossbenchno
The Earl of Mar and KellieLDem (front bench)no
Lord Marlesford Con (front bench)absent
Lord Marsh Crossbenchabsent
Lord Marshall of KnightsbridgeCrossbenchabsent
Baroness Masham of IltonCrossbenchabsent
Lord Mason of BarnsleyLabno
Baroness Massey of DarwenLab (minister)no
Lord Mayhew of TwysdenCon (front bench)absent
Lord May of OxfordCrossbenchabsent
Lord McAlpine of West GreenConabsent
Lord McCarthy Lababsent
Lord McCluskey Crossbenchabsent
Lord McColl of DulwichCon (front bench)aye
Baroness McFarlane of LlandaffCrossbenchabsent
Lord McIntosh of HaringeyLab (minister)absent
Baroness McIntosh of HudnallLabno
Lord McNally LDemno
Lord Merlyn-Rees Labno
Lord Methuen LDem (front bench)absent
Baroness Michie of GallanachLDemabsent
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerLDemno
Baroness Miller of HendonConabsent
Lord Millett Crossbenchabsent
Lord Mishcon Lababsent
Lord Mitchell Lab (minister)absent
Lord Molyneaux of KilleadCrossbenchno
Lord Monro of LangholmConabsent
Lord Monson Crossbenchaye
Lord Montagu of BeaulieuConabsent
The Duke of MontroseConabsent
Lord Moore of Lower MarshConabsent
Lord Moore of WolvercoteCrossbenchabsent
Lord Moran Crossbenchtellaye
Lord Morgan Lab (minister)absent
Baroness Morgan of HuytonLababsent
Lord Morris of AberavonLababsent
Lord Morris of ManchesterLabno
Lord Moser Crossbenchabsent
Lord Mowbray and Stourton Conabsent
Lord Moynihan Conaye
Lord Murray of Epping ForestLababsent
Lord Murton of LindisfarneConaye
Lord Mustill Crossbenchabsent
Lord Naseby Con (front bench)absent
Lord Neill of BladenCrossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Newby LDem (front bench)absent
The Bishop of NewcastleBishopabsent
Lord Newton of BraintreeConabsent
Lord Nicholls of BirkenheadCrossbenchabsent
Baroness Nicholson of WinterbourneLDemabsent
Lord Nickson Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Nicol Lab (minister)no
Baroness Noakes Conaye
Lord Nolan Crossbenchabsent
The Duke of NorfolkCrossbenchabsent
Lord Northbourne Crossbenchaye
Lord Northbrook Conabsent
The Earl of NortheskConaye
Lord Northfield Lababsent
Baroness Northover LDem (front bench)no
Lord Norton of LouthCon (front bench)aye
Baroness O'Cathain Con (front bench)no
Baroness O'Neill of BengarveCrossbenchabsent
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayLDem (front bench)absent
Lord Oliver of AylmertonCrossbenchabsent
The Earl of OnslowConaye
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Conabsent
Lord Orme Lababsent
Lord Ouseley Crossbenchabsent
Lord Owen Crossbenchabsent
Lord Oxburgh Crossbench (front bench)absent
The Bishop of OxfordBishopabsent
Lord Palmer Crossbench (front bench)aye
Lord Palumbo Conabsent
Lord Parekh Lababsent
Lord Parkinson Conabsent
Baroness Park of MonmouthConabsent
Lord Parry Lababsent
Lord Patel Crossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Patel of BlackburnLabno
Lord Patten Conabsent
Lord Paul Lab (minister)absent
Lord Pearson of RannochConaye
Earl Peel Conaye
Lord Pendry Labno
Baroness Perry of SouthwarkCon (front bench)no
Lord Peston Lab (minister)no
The Bishop of PeterboroughBishopabsent
Lord Peyton of YeovilConno
Lord Phillips of SudburyLDem (front bench)absent
Lord Phillips of Worth MatraversJudgeabsent
Lord Pilkington of OxenfordCon (front bench)aye
Baroness Pitkeathley Lab (minister)absent
Lord Plant of HighfieldLab (minister)absent
Baroness Platt of WrittleCon (front bench)no
Lord Plumb Conabsent
Lord Plummer of St MaryleboneConabsent
Lord Ponsonby of ShulbredeLabno
The Bishop of PortsmouthBishopabsent
Lord Powell of BayswaterCrossbenchabsent
Baroness Prashar Crossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Prior Con (front bench)no
Lord Prys-Davies Lababsent
Lord Puttnam Labno
Lord Pym Conabsent
Lord Quinton Conabsent
Lord Quirk Crossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Radice Lab (minister)no
Baroness Ramsay of CartvaleLabno
Lord Randall of St BudeauxLabno
Baroness Rawlings Conaye
Lord Rawlinson of EwellConno
Lord Razzall LDem (front bench)absent
Lord Rea Labno
Lord Reay Conabsent
Lord Redesdale LDem (front bench)absent
Lord Rees Conabsent
Lord Rees-Mogg Crossbench (front bench)aye
Baroness Rendell of BaberghLab (minister)no
Lord Renfrew of KaimsthornCon (front bench)absent
Lord Rennard LDemabsent
Lord Renton Conabsent
Lord Renton of Mount HarryCon (front bench)no
Lord Renwick of CliftonLababsent
Lord Richard Lababsent
Lord Richardson Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Richardson of CalowCrossbenchno
Lord Richardson of DuntisbourneCrossbenchabsent
Lord Rix Crossbenchabsent
Lord Roberts of ConwyConabsent
Lord Robertson of Port EllenCrossbenchabsent
The Bishop of RochesterBishopabsent
Lord Rodger of EarlsferryJudgeabsent
Lord Rodgers of Quarry BankLDem (front bench)no
Lord Rogan UUPno
Lord Rogers of RiversideLababsent
Lord Roll of IpsdenCrossbenchno
Lord Rooker Lab (minister)absent
Lord Roper LDem (front bench)no
The Earl of RosslynCrossbenchabsent
Lord Rotherwick Conabsent
Earl Russell LDem (front bench)no
Lord Russell-Johnston LDemno
Lord Ryder of WensumConaye
Lord Saatchi Conabsent
Lord Sainsbury of Preston CandoverConabsent
Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleLab (minister)absent
The Bishop of SalisburyBishopabsent
The Marquess of SalisburyConabsent
Lady Saltoun of AbernethyCrossbench (front bench)aye
Lord Sandberg LDem (front bench)absent
Lord Sanderson of BowdenConabsent
The Earl of SandwichCrossbench (front bench)no
Lord Saville of NewdigateCrossbenchabsent
Lord Sawyer Lababsent
Lord Scanlon Lababsent
Lord Scarman Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLab (minister)no
Lord Scott of FoscoteCrossbench (front bench)absent
Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLDem (front bench)tellno
Baroness Seccombe Conaye
The Earl of SelborneConabsent
Lord Selkirk of DouglasConabsent
Lord Selsdon Conabsent
Lord Sewel Lababsent
Lord Sharman LDemabsent
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLDem (front bench)no
Baroness Sharples Conaye
Lord Shaw of NorthsteadCon (front bench)absent
The Bishop of SheffieldBishopabsent
Lord Sheldon Lab (minister)no
Lord Sheppard of DidgemereCon (front bench)aye
Lord Sheppard of LiverpoolLababsent
The Earl of ShrewsburyConabsent
Lord Shutt of GreetlandLDem (front bench)no
Viscount Simon Lab (minister)no
Lord Simon of GlaisdaleCrossbenchabsent
Lord Simon of HighburyLababsent
Lord Simpson of DunkeldLababsent
Lord Skelmersdale Con (front bench)no
Lord Skidelsky Crossbenchabsent
Viscount Slim Crossbench (front bench)aye
Lord Slynn of HadleyCrossbenchabsent
Lord Smith of CliftonLDem (front bench)no
Baroness Smith of GilmorehillLabno
Lord Smith of LeighLababsent
The Earl of SnowdonCrossbenchabsent
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham PriorCon (front bench)absent
The Bishop of SouthwarkBishopabsent
The Bishop of St AlbansBishopabsent
The Bishop of St Edmundsbury and IpswichBishopabsent
Lord St John of BletsoCrossbenchno
Lord St John of FawsleyConabsent
Lord Stallard Labno
Lord Steel of AikwoodLDemabsent
Lord Sterling of PlaistowConabsent
Baroness Stern Crossbenchno
Lord Stevens of LudgateConaye
Lord Stevenson of CoddenhamCrossbenchabsent
Lord Stewartby Conabsent
Lord Steyn Crossbenchabsent
Lord Stoddart of SwindonIndependent Labouraye
Lord Stokes Crossbenchabsent
Lord Stone of BlackheathLababsent
Lord Strabolgi Labno
Baroness Strange Crossbenchaye
Lord Strathclyde Con (front bench)absent
Lord Sutherland of HoundwoodCrossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Swinfen Conaye
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanLab (minister)no
Lord Tanlaw Crossbenchabsent
Lord Taverne LDemno
Lord Taylor of BlackburnLababsent
Lord Taylor of WarwickConabsent
Lord Tebbit Conabsent
Lord Temple-Morris Lab (minister)no
Lord Templeman Crossbenchabsent
Viscount Tenby Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Thatcher Conabsent
Lord Thomas of GresfordLDemabsent
Lord Thomas of GwydirConaye
Lord Thomas of MacclesfieldLababsent
Lord Thomas of SwynnertonCrossbenchabsent
Baroness Thomas of WalliswoodLDemno
Lord Thomson of MonifiethLDemno
Baroness Thornton Labno
Lord Tombs Crossbench (front bench)absent
Lord Tomlinson Lababsent
Lord Tope LDemabsent
Lord Tordoff LDem (front bench)absent
Lord Trefgarne Con (front bench)aye
Lord Triesman Lab (minister)no
Lord Trotman Crossbenchabsent
Baroness Trumpington Con (front bench)no
The Bishop of TruroBishopabsent
Lord Tugendhat Conabsent
Lord Turnberg Lab (minister)no
Baroness Turner of CamdenLabno
Baroness Uddin Lababsent
Viscount Ullswater Con (front bench)aye
Lord Varley Lababsent
Lord Vincent of ColeshillCrossbenchabsent
Lord Vinson Con (front bench)tellaye
Lord Vivian Conabsent
Lord Waddington Conaye
Lord Wade of ChorltonCon (front bench)aye
Lord Wakeham Con (front bench)no
Lord Waldegrave of North HillConabsent
Lord Walker of GestingthorpeJudgeabsent
Lord Walker of WorcesterConabsent
Lord Wallace of SaltaireLDem (front bench)no
Baroness Walmsley LDem (front bench)absent
Lord Walpole Crossbench (front bench)no
Lord Walton of DetchantCrossbenchabsent
Lord Warner Lab (minister)absent
Baroness Warnock Crossbench (front bench)absent
Baroness Warwick of UndercliffeLab (minister)absent
Lord Watson of InvergowrieLababsent
Lord Watson of RichmondLDemabsent
Viscount Waverley Crossbenchabsent
Lord Weatherill Crossbench (front bench)aye
Lord Wedderburn of CharltonLabaye
Lord Weidenfeld Crossbenchabsent
Lord Whaddon Lababsent
Baroness Whitaker Labno
Lord Whitty Lab (minister)absent
Lord Wigoder LDemabsent
Baroness Wilcox Con (front bench)no
Baroness Wilkins Lab (minister)absent
Baroness Williams of CrosbyLDem (front bench)no
Lord Williams of ElvelLab (minister)no
Lord Williamson of HortonCrossbench (front bench)no
Lord Willoughby de Broke Conaye
Lord Wilson of DintonCrossbenchabsent
Lord Wilson of TillyornCrossbenchabsent
The Bishop of WinchesterBishopabsent
Lord Windlesham Conno
Lord Winston Lab (minister)absent
Lord Wolfson Conabsent
Lord Wolfson of SunningdaleConabsent
Lord Woolf Crossbenchabsent
Lord Woolmer of LeedsLab (minister)absent
The Bishop of WorcesterBishopabsent
Lord Wright of RichmondCrossbench (front bench)absent
The Archbishop of YorkBishopabsent
Lord Young of GraffhamCon (front bench)absent
Baroness Young of Old SconeNon-affiliatedabsent

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive