Claire Hazelgrove Alert Sample


Alert Sample

View the Parallel Parliament page for Claire Hazelgrove

Information between 8th January 2026 - 18th January 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
13 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 323 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 348 Noes - 167
13 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 328 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 172 Noes - 334
13 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 325 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 181 Noes - 335
13 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 328 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 344 Noes - 173
13 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 321 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 184 Noes - 331
13 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 334 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 187 Noes - 351
12 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 336 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 185 Noes - 344
12 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 338 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 167 Noes - 350
12 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 336 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 344 Noes - 181
12 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 333 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 188 Noes - 341
12 Jan 2026 - Finance (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 320 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 324 Noes - 180
14 Jan 2026 - Public Order - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 295 Labour Aye votes vs 26 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 301 Noes - 110
12 Jan 2026 - Clause 1 - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 332 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 188 Noes - 341
12 Jan 2026 - Clause 1 - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 338 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 167 Noes - 350
12 Jan 2026 - Clause 1 - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 335 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 344 Noes - 181
12 Jan 2026 - Clause 1 - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 320 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 324 Noes - 180
12 Jan 2026 - Clause 1 - View Vote Context
Claire Hazelgrove voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 335 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 185 Noes - 344


Speeches
Claire Hazelgrove speeches from: Call for General Election
Claire Hazelgrove contributed 1 speech (2 words)
Monday 12th January 2026 - Westminster Hall
Cabinet Office


Written Answers
Insurance: Sickle Cell Diseases
Asked by: Claire Hazelgrove (Labour - Filton and Bradley Stoke)
Friday 9th January 2026

Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the availability, affordability and terms of insurance for people (a) diagnosed with sickle cell disease and (b) carrying the sickle cell trait.

Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)

The government has not made a specific assessment regarding insurance for individuals with sickle cell disease. However, the government recognises the important role of insurance products in building the financial resilience of consumers and protecting them when things go wrong. The government’s Financial Inclusion Strategy seeks to close gaps in protection and ensure that the insurance sector is well-placed to support the financial wellbeing of households and vulnerable customers.

The Equality Act 2010 generally prohibits discrimination based on certain personal characteristics. However, the law accepts that some exceptions, relating to age and disability, apply for insurance. The Act stipulates an insurance provider cannot refuse to cover potential consumers or charge more for insurance as a result of these characteristics, unless they base their risk assessment on relevant information from a reliable source and (in the case of the disability exception) it is reasonable for the insurer to refuse cover or charge more.

However, the Financial Conduct Authority, as the independent regulator, requires firms to ensure their products offer fair value. The FCA has been clear that it will be monitoring firms, and, where necessary, it will take action.

Since 2021, the FCA has required firms providing travel insurance to signpost consumers with pre-existing medical conditions to a directory of specialist providers if they are declined cover, offered cover with an exclusion, or charged a significantly higher premium based on a pre-existing medical condition.