Information between 28th February 2026 - 10th 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 |
|---|
|
4 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 105 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 129 Noes - 132 |
|
4 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted No - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 135 Conservative No votes vs 3 Conservative Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 213 Noes - 145 |
|
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 |
|
9 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 162 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 200 Noes - 162 |
|
9 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 66 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 68 Noes - 183 |
|
9 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 69 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 76 Noes - 185 |
|
9 Mar 2026 - Crime and Policing Bill - View Vote Context Lord Sharpe of Epsom voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House One of 70 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes Tally: Ayes - 82 Noes - 151 |
| Speeches |
|---|
|
Lord Sharpe of Epsom speeches from: Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Lord Sharpe of Epsom contributed 2 speeches (756 words) Report stage Tuesday 3rd March 2026 - Lords Chamber Department of Health and Social Care |
| Written Answers |
|---|
|
British Steel: Finance
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer) Thursday 5th March 2026 Question to the Department for Business and Trade: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have approved a financial ceiling for public support to British Steel and, if so, what it is. Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip) Longer-term funding for British Steel is subject to agreement with HM Treasury once plans for the site are finalised and will be subject to further ministerial decisions. We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of BSL. In the interim, as a public corporation, BSL continues trading commercially with the objective of minimising losses to the taxpayer. All support for BSL has been drawn from existing HMG budgets, with no additional borrowing required. |
|
British Steel: Scunthorpe
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer) Monday 9th March 2026 Question to the Department for Business and Trade: To ask His Majesty's Government what contingency provision they have made in the event that losses at British Steel’s Scunthorpe steelworks materially exceed current forecasts. Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip) Steel is strategically important to the UK’s industrial base, the delivery of the Industrial Strategy and the maintenance of critical infrastructure. In April 2025, the Government we intervened introduced the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act to avoid the premature and disorderly closure of the blast furnaces at British Steel and ensure uninterrupted steel production. The Act is a temporary measure to ensure that critical steel facilities remain operational. The passing of the Act, and use in relation to British Steel, does not itself establish any sort of precedent in UK company law. We continue to work with Jingye, the owner, to find a pragmatic and realistic solution to the future of British Steel. The published impact assessment for the Special Measures Act considered the potential impact on the wider business community. It highlighted the exceptional nature of the intervention, which should limit any wider effect on investment. To date, DBT has provided approximately £370 million to British Steel, of this, £57 million (15%) was used for payroll costs, £104 million (28%) for other operational expenses, and £209 million (57%) for raw material purchases. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26. The Government keeps British Steel’s financial position under constant review to protect taxpayers’ interests while ensuring continuity of safe and responsible operations. British Steel continues trading commercially and Government officials continue to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe monitoring, reviewing and scrutinising the use of taxpayer funds with robust financial governance in place. |
|
Iron and Steel: Cost Effectiveness
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer) Monday 9th March 2026 Question to the Department for Business and Trade: To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure value for money for taxpayers while they remain in operational control of a loss-making steel producer. Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip) Steel is strategically important to the UK’s industrial base, the delivery of the Industrial Strategy and the maintenance of critical infrastructure. In April 2025, the Government we intervened introduced the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act to avoid the premature and disorderly closure of the blast furnaces at British Steel and ensure uninterrupted steel production. The Act is a temporary measure to ensure that critical steel facilities remain operational. The passing of the Act, and use in relation to British Steel, does not itself establish any sort of precedent in UK company law. We continue to work with Jingye, the owner, to find a pragmatic and realistic solution to the future of British Steel. The published impact assessment for the Special Measures Act considered the potential impact on the wider business community. It highlighted the exceptional nature of the intervention, which should limit any wider effect on investment. To date, DBT has provided approximately £370 million to British Steel, of this, £57 million (15%) was used for payroll costs, £104 million (28%) for other operational expenses, and £209 million (57%) for raw material purchases. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26. The Government keeps British Steel’s financial position under constant review to protect taxpayers’ interests while ensuring continuity of safe and responsible operations. British Steel continues trading commercially and Government officials continue to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe monitoring, reviewing and scrutinising the use of taxpayer funds with robust financial governance in place. |
|
British Steel: Finance
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer) Monday 9th March 2026 Question to the Department for Business and Trade: To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to publish a full breakdown of working capital support provided to British Steel, including expenditure on wages, raw materials for steel production, debt servicing, and supplier payments. Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip) Steel is strategically important to the UK’s industrial base, the delivery of the Industrial Strategy and the maintenance of critical infrastructure. In April 2025, the Government we intervened introduced the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act to avoid the premature and disorderly closure of the blast furnaces at British Steel and ensure uninterrupted steel production. The Act is a temporary measure to ensure that critical steel facilities remain operational. The passing of the Act, and use in relation to British Steel, does not itself establish any sort of precedent in UK company law. We continue to work with Jingye, the owner, to find a pragmatic and realistic solution to the future of British Steel. The published impact assessment for the Special Measures Act considered the potential impact on the wider business community. It highlighted the exceptional nature of the intervention, which should limit any wider effect on investment. To date, DBT has provided approximately £370 million to British Steel, of this, £57 million (15%) was used for payroll costs, £104 million (28%) for other operational expenses, and £209 million (57%) for raw material purchases. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26. The Government keeps British Steel’s financial position under constant review to protect taxpayers’ interests while ensuring continuity of safe and responsible operations. British Steel continues trading commercially and Government officials continue to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe monitoring, reviewing and scrutinising the use of taxpayer funds with robust financial governance in place. |
|
British Steel: Costs
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer) Monday 9th March 2026 Question to the Department for Business and Trade: To ask His Majesty's Government what is the estimated cost per job currently being supported through public funding of British Steel. Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip) Steel is strategically important to the UK’s industrial base, the delivery of the Industrial Strategy and the maintenance of critical infrastructure. In April 2025, the Government we intervened introduced the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act to avoid the premature and disorderly closure of the blast furnaces at British Steel and ensure uninterrupted steel production. The Act is a temporary measure to ensure that critical steel facilities remain operational. The passing of the Act, and use in relation to British Steel, does not itself establish any sort of precedent in UK company law. We continue to work with Jingye, the owner, to find a pragmatic and realistic solution to the future of British Steel. The published impact assessment for the Special Measures Act considered the potential impact on the wider business community. It highlighted the exceptional nature of the intervention, which should limit any wider effect on investment. To date, DBT has provided approximately £370 million to British Steel, of this, £57 million (15%) was used for payroll costs, £104 million (28%) for other operational expenses, and £209 million (57%) for raw material purchases. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26. The Government keeps British Steel’s financial position under constant review to protect taxpayers’ interests while ensuring continuity of safe and responsible operations. British Steel continues trading commercially and Government officials continue to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe monitoring, reviewing and scrutinising the use of taxpayer funds with robust financial governance in place. |
|
British Steel
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer) Monday 9th March 2026 Question to the Department for Business and Trade: To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of (1) the risk that intervention in British Steel establishes a precedent in UK company law, and (2) the implications of any such precedent for future inward investment into strategically important manufacturing sectors. Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip) Steel is strategically important to the UK’s industrial base, the delivery of the Industrial Strategy and the maintenance of critical infrastructure. In April 2025, the Government we intervened introduced the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act to avoid the premature and disorderly closure of the blast furnaces at British Steel and ensure uninterrupted steel production. The Act is a temporary measure to ensure that critical steel facilities remain operational. The passing of the Act, and use in relation to British Steel, does not itself establish any sort of precedent in UK company law. We continue to work with Jingye, the owner, to find a pragmatic and realistic solution to the future of British Steel. The published impact assessment for the Special Measures Act considered the potential impact on the wider business community. It highlighted the exceptional nature of the intervention, which should limit any wider effect on investment. To date, DBT has provided approximately £370 million to British Steel, of this, £57 million (15%) was used for payroll costs, £104 million (28%) for other operational expenses, and £209 million (57%) for raw material purchases. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26. The Government keeps British Steel’s financial position under constant review to protect taxpayers’ interests while ensuring continuity of safe and responsible operations. British Steel continues trading commercially and Government officials continue to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe monitoring, reviewing and scrutinising the use of taxpayer funds with robust financial governance in place. |
| Live Transcript |
|---|
|
Note: Cited speaker in live transcript data may not always be accurate. Check video link to confirm. |
|
3 Mar 2026, 8:35 p.m. - House of Lords "to amendment 196, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think we may disagree on the " Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat) - View Video - View Transcript |
|
3 Mar 2026, 8:03 p.m. - House of Lords "government to to find the right balance. Let me also turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. There is really " Lord Kamall (Conservative) - View Video - View Transcript |
|
3 Mar 2026, 8:12 p.m. - House of Lords "Amendment 168 Lord Sharpe of Epsom not moved. Amendment 169 Lord " Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative) - View Video - View Transcript |
| Parliamentary Debates |
|---|
|
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
163 speeches (31,627 words) Report stage Tuesday 3rd March 2026 - Lords Chamber Department of Health and Social Care Mentions: 1: Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated - Life peer) of the reasons why I have added my name to Amendment 168 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Link to Speech 2: Lord Kamall (Con - Life peer) for the Government to find the right balance.I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Link to Speech 3: Baroness Walmsley (LD - Life peer) will naturally become smoke-free.This brings me to Amendment 196, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Link to Speech |