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. |