Information between 30th June 2025 - 10th July 2025
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 |
---|
30 Jun 2025 - UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 162 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 185 Noes - 205 |
1 Jul 2025 - Renters’ Rights Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 148 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 169 Noes - 176 |
1 Jul 2025 - Renters’ Rights Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 156 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 230 Noes - 137 |
1 Jul 2025 - Renters’ Rights Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 164 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 253 Noes - 150 |
1 Jul 2025 - Renters’ Rights Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 180 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 221 Noes - 196 |
2 Jul 2025 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 82 Conservative No votes vs 23 Conservative Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 84 Noes - 263 |
2 Jul 2025 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 249 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 280 Noes - 243 |
2 Jul 2025 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 81 Conservative No votes vs 2 Conservative Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 55 Noes - 234 |
7 Jul 2025 - Renters’ Rights Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 168 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 206 Noes - 198 |
7 Jul 2025 - Renters’ Rights Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 175 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 274 Noes - 154 |
7 Jul 2025 - Renters’ Rights Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 174 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 213 Noes - 209 |
9 Jul 2025 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 251 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 284 Noes - 239 |
9 Jul 2025 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House One of 1 Conservative No votes vs 7 Conservative Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 11 Noes - 126 |
9 Jul 2025 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 134 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 139 Noes - 158 |
9 Jul 2025 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 246 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 265 Noes - 247 |
Speeches |
---|
Lord Murray of Blidworth speeches from: Prisons: Early Release
Lord Murray of Blidworth contributed 2 speeches (114 words) Wednesday 9th July 2025 - Lords Chamber Ministry of Justice |
Lord Murray of Blidworth speeches from: UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago
Lord Murray of Blidworth contributed 4 speeches (695 words) Monday 30th June 2025 - Lords Chamber Leader of the House |
Parliamentary Debates |
---|
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
97 speeches (26,267 words) Committee stage part one Tuesday 8th July 2025 - Lords Chamber Home Office Mentions: 1: Lord Alton of Liverpool (XB - Life peer) committee, incidentally, as some here will almost certainly remember, by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth - Link to Speech |
UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago
105 speeches (36,391 words) Monday 30th June 2025 - Lords Chamber Leader of the House Mentions: 1: Lord Boateng (Lab - Life peer) are to be congratulated and the whole House owes them a debt of gratitude.The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth - Link to Speech |
Select Committee Documents |
---|
Wednesday 25th June 2025
Oral Evidence - University of Worcester, Birmingham City University, and Birmingham City University Human Rights (Joint Committee) Found: Lord Murray of Blidworth: I disagree. |
Bill Documents |
---|
Jul. 09 2025
HL Bill 101-III Third marshalled list for Committee Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Amendment Paper Found: LORD MURRAY OF BLIDWORTH As an amendment to amendment 189 189A_ After subsection (4)(a), insert— “ |
Jul. 09 2025
HL Bill 101-III(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Amendment Paper Found: After Clause 48 LORD MURRAY OF BLIDWORTH 203F★_ After Clause 48 insert the following new Clause— “ |
Jul. 04 2025
HL Bill 101-II Second marshalled list for Committee Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Amendment Paper Found: not have regard to the interim measure.” 83 Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill LORD MURRAY OF BLIDWORTH |
Jun. 30 2025
HL Bill 49-R-I Marshalled list for Report House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Amendment Paper Found: LORD KEEN OF ELIE LORD WOLFSON OF TREDEGAR LORD MURRAY OF BLIDWORTH 10_ After Clause 1, insert the |
Jun. 30 2025
HL Bill 89 Running list of amendments – 30 June 2025 Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Amendment Paper Found: Clause 2 LORD STRATHCARRON LORD MURRAY OF BLIDWORTH _ Clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out “18” and |
Calendar |
---|
Wednesday 9th July 2025 2 p.m. Human Rights (Joint Committee) - Private Meeting View calendar - Add to calendar |
Wednesday 16th July 2025 2 p.m. Human Rights (Joint Committee) - Private Meeting View calendar - Add to calendar |
Select Committee Inquiry |
---|
10 Jul 2025
Human Rights of Children in the Social Care System in England Human Rights (Joint Committee) (Select) Not accepting submissions Out of nearly 12 million children living in England, over 400,000 are in the social care system at any one time.[1] Out of these, nearly 84,000 children in England are” in care” (i.e. being looked after by local authorities).[2] Across the UK, it is estimated that 107,000 children are in care.[3] In 2023, the then Government proposed a plan to reform children’s social care, in its “Stable Homes, Built on Love” strategy. It proposed a series of “missions” to improve the quality of the support provided to children and their families, such as providing better training to social workers, and listening more to children and young people. In 2024, the current Government announced the “biggest overhaul in a generation to children’s social care”, with the stated aim to provide a “wide range of new reform measures… to deliver better outcomes and a more secure life for children across the country”.[4] Against this background, this inquiry will consider the extent to which the human rights of children in England are protected in the social care system. This inquiry will have a particular focus on children in care (“looked after children”), but wider aspects of the children’s social care system will be relevant, for example in regard to the availability of additional support to families with disabled children or to the efficacy of early intervention measures.
[1] This figure includes children in care as well as children assessed as needing help and protection as a result of risks to their development or health. Ofsted, Main findings: children’s social care in England 2024. [2] Ofsted, Main findings: children’s social care in England 2024. A child is in care, or is a “looked after child” if they are in local authority care by reason of a care order or are being provided with accommodation under section 20 of the 1989 Act for more than 24 hours with the agreement of the parents, or of the child if the child is aged 16 or over (section 22(1) and (2) of the 1989 Act). [3] Become, Why the care system has to change [4] Biggest overhaul in a generation to children’s social care - GOV.UK |
23 Jul 2025
Proposal for a draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2025 Human Rights (Joint Committee) (Select) Not accepting submissions Background Section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that in proceedings under that Act in respect of a judicial act done in good faith, damages may not be awarded except in two circumstances. The first is to compensate a person to the extent required by Article 5(5) of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) (deprivation of liberty). The second is to compensate a person for a judicial act that is incompatible with Article 6 ECHR (right to fair trial) in circumstances where the person is detained and, but for the incompatibility, the person would not have been detained or would not have been detained for so long. In the case of Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140, the Court of Appeal found that accusations of professional misconduct against a witness made by a Family Court judge breached her rights under Article 8 of the ECHR (right to respect for private life). In its judgment of 22 June 2021 in SW v United Kingdom (Application no. 87/18), the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR (right to an effective remedy), because the effect of section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 was that the witness could not bring a claim for damages in respect of a judicial act that was incompatible with Article 8. Government proposals On 17 July 2025, the Government laid before both Houses of Parliament its proposal for a Remedial Order to amend the Human Rights Act 1998. The proposed order is intended to give effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in SW v United Kingdom, by remedying the incompatibility of section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 with Article 13 of the ECHR. The Government proposes to address this incompatibility by amending section 9(3) to allow damages to be awarded to compensate a person for a judicial act on an additional basis: that the judicial act is incompatible with Article 8 on the ground that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirements of procedural fairness under that Article. Section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 was previously amended by the Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2020 to give effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hammerton v United Kingdom (Application no. 6287/10). See the Fifteenth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2017-19, and its Second Report of Session 2019-21.
Remedial Orders Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives Ministers of the Crown the power to make remedial orders. The section applies if it appears to the Minister that, having regard to a finding of the European Court of Human Rights in proceedings against the United Kingdom, a provision of legislation is incompatible with an obligation of the United Kingdom arising from the Convention. In those circumstances, the Minister may by order make such amendments to the legislation as the Minister considers necessary to remove the incompatibility, if the Minister considers that there are compelling reasons for doing so. Reporting on the proposal The Joint Committee on Human Rights is required to report to Parliament on any proposal for a remedial order to be made under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Committee has 60 sitting days to report to each House its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposal should be laid before the House. |