Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating Lords Reasons 359B and 439B Vote on a procedural motion in the Crime and Policing Bill concerning the government's response to two specific Lords amendments (359B and 439B). Without debate excerpts, the exact substance of those Lords amendments is unknown, but the Commons was deciding whether to accept or reject changes the House of Lords had made to the bill. Position: Support the government's position on Lords amendments 359B and 439B to the Crime and Policing Bill, likely rejecting or modifying the Lords' proposed changes Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Amendments 2D and 2E The Commons voted on a motion relating to Lords Amendments 2D and 2E to the Crime and Policing Bill. Without debate excerpts, the precise content of these Lords amendments is unknown, but this vote determined whether the Commons accepted or rejected changes the House of Lords had made to the Bill. Position: Support the government's position on Lords Amendments 2D and 2E to the Crime and Policing Bill, likely rejecting or modifying the Lords' changes Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Reason 11B A procedural vote during the ping-pong stage of the Crime and Policing Bill, where the Commons considered its response to a Lords amendment (Lords Reason 11B). Without debate excerpts it is not possible to determine the specific policy content, but the vote determined whether the Commons accepted or rejected the Lords' position on a provision within the Bill. Position: Support the Commons (government) position in response to Lords Reason 11B, rejecting or qualifying the Lords' proposed change to the Crime and Policing Bill Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Reason 342B Vote on a procedural motion relating to a Lords amendment (342B) to the Crime and Policing Bill, where the Commons considered the Lords' reasoning for a change to the bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific policy substance cannot be determined, but this reflects a disagreement between the Commons and Lords over a provision in the bill. Position: Support the Commons position in rejecting or disagreeing with the Lords' reasoning on amendment 342B to the Crime and Policing Bill Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 Apr 2026 |
Courts and Tribunals Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading MPs voted on a Conservative reasoned amendment opposing the Courts and Tribunals Bill at Second Reading. The Bill, introduced by David Lammy, aims to modernise the criminal justice system, but the opposition attempted to block its progress, with concerns raised about the impact on jury trials and the effect on black and minority ethnic defendants. Position: Support allowing the Courts and Tribunals Bill to proceed, backing government reforms to modernise courts and tribunals while retaining jury trials as a cornerstone of justice Constitution and Democracyleftwith govt | No | 10 Mar 2026 |
Courts and Tribunals Bill: Second Reading MPs voted on whether to give initial approval to a Courts and Tribunals Bill, which proposes modernising the criminal justice system. Debate focused on whether reforms — including potential changes to when juries are used — are necessary to clear court backlogs, while critics raised concerns about protecting jury trial rights and disproportionate impacts on minority ethnic defendants. Position: Support modernising the courts and criminal justice system, including reforms to jury thresholds, to make it fit for the 21st century Constitution and Democracycentrewith govt | Yes | 10 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 106 The Commons voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (106) that would have put a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools into law. The government argued its strengthened guidance already ensures schools are mobile phone-free 'bell to bell' and that legislation is unnecessary, while the Lords wanted a formal legal requirement. Position: Support the government's position that strengthened guidance is sufficient to enforce mobile phone bans in schools, rejecting a statutory requirement added by the Lords EducationSchoolscentrewith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 38 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have banned children under 16 from accessing social media. The Lords had added this measure to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but the government disagreed with it, proposing instead to deal with online harms through alternative means. Position: Support the government's position of rejecting the Lords' proposed under-16 social media ban, preferring alternative regulatory approaches rather than an outright ban EducationSchoolscentrewith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 41 The Commons voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment that would have introduced a price cap on branded school uniform items, replacing the government's preferred approach of capping the number of compulsory branded items schools can require. The Lords amendment was backed by opposition MPs who argued a cost cap is a more effective way to reduce uniform costs for parents. Position: Support rejecting the Lords' price cap on school uniforms, preferring the government's existing approach of limiting the number of compulsory branded uniform items EducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 44 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (44) that would have required parental consent before families could be referred to or kept on a child protection support programme. The government argued this requirement would deter vulnerable families from seeking help; opponents, citing cases like Sara Sharif, argued the Lords change would have better protected children at risk. Position: Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, keeping the existing approach where families can be referred to support programmes without a new consent requirement EducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 17 The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment (Amendment 17) to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Based on the debate, Lords Amendment 17 related to sibling relationships for looked-after children, but the government argued it would do little to advance that cause, preferring instead to address the issue through broader children's social care reforms. Position: Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment on sibling relationships for looked-after children, trusting that wider social care reforms will better address the issue EducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 16 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have required a review of funding levels for the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund, which provides financial help for adoptive and special guardian families. The government argued it had already committed £55 million for 2026-27 and confirmed the fund's continuation, making a formal review unnecessary. Position: Support the government's rejection of a mandatory funding review for the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund, trusting existing ministerial commitments are sufficient EducationSchoolscentrewith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 102 The Lords had amended the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill to prevent the government from reducing pupil admission numbers at oversubscribed good and outstanding schools. The Commons voted to reject this Lords amendment, meaning the government retains the power to limit how many pupils these schools can take, overriding the Lords' attempt to protect parental choice and high-performing schools. Position: Support the government's power to reduce pupil admission numbers at oversubscribed good and outstanding schools, rejecting the Lords' protection of parental choice EducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37 The Commons voted to reject the Lords' version of an amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill relating to child poverty and free school meals entitlements, replacing it with the government's own alternative amendments. The Lords amendment engaged financial privilege, meaning it had spending implications; the government preferred its own wording expanding free school meals to children in universal credit households. Position: Support the government's approach of substituting its own amendments in lieu of the Lords' version, backing the government's specific free school meals expansion plan EducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Opposition Day: Protections for children from online harms The opposition brought forward a motion calling for stronger protections for children from online harms. As an Opposition Day motion, it was debated on time allocated to the opposition and the Labour government voted against it. Position: Reject the opposition's motion, defending the government's existing approach to child online safety — likely arguing current legislation (such as the Online Safety Act) is sufficient or that the motion is politically motivated Digital and TechnologyOnline Safetycross-cuttingwith govt | No | 24 Feb 2026 |
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill: Third Reading MPs voted on the final passage of a Bill to abolish the two-child limit on Universal Credit, which currently restricts child elements of the benefit to the first two children in a family. Removing this limit aims to reduce child poverty by ensuring all children in low-income families receive equal support. Position: Support removing the two-child benefit cap so that all children in low-income families receive equal Universal Credit entitlements, reducing child poverty Universal CreditWelfare and Benefitsleftwith govt | Yes | 23 Feb 2026 |
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill Committee: New Clause 3 Vote on New Clause 3, an amendment to the bill removing the two-child benefit limit. Based on the debate, this related to additional reporting or consultation requirements around the removal of the limit, which the government was already supporting in principle but opposed this specific clause. Position: Oppose the additional requirements in New Clause 3, backing the government's approach to removing the two-child limit without extra conditions attached Universal CreditWelfare and Benefitsrightwith govt | No | 23 Feb 2026 |
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee: New Clause 3 Vote on New Clause 3, which would have required the government to report on UK Export Finance's impact on GDP and support for small and medium-sized businesses. The government opposed it on the grounds that existing reporting requirements already cover this information. Position: Oppose the new reporting clause as unnecessary, since the government argues existing legal reporting obligations already capture this information BusinessEconomycross-cuttingwith govt | No | 23 Feb 2026 |
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee: Amendment 1 Vote on whether to ban UK government export finance or insurance for goods where there is reason to believe they may be re-exported to Russia or other sanctioned countries, and separately to ban export finance where modern slavery or human trafficking is involved. This Opposition amendment would have set the financial assistance limit to zero in such cases. Position: Oppose this restriction, likely arguing existing sanctions law and due diligence requirements are sufficient without additional legislative constraints on export finance BusinessEconomycross-cuttingwith govt | No | 23 Feb 2026 |
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee: New Clause 2 Vote on opposition amendments to the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill that would have restricted UK Export Finance support where goods might be re-exported to Russia or other sanctioned countries, and separately where exports involve modern slavery or human trafficking. The amendments sought to cap the Secretary of State's financial commitments to zero in such cases. Position: Oppose these restrictions, preferring the government retain flexibility in how UK Export Finance is used without these additional conditions BusinessEconomycross-cuttingwith govt | No | 23 Feb 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 25 Vote on a Conservative amendment requiring the government to publish assessments of the impact of nearly doubling remote gaming duty (from 21% to 40%) and raising general betting duty to 25%. Opponents warned these increases could damage a competitive industry supporting tens of thousands of jobs and key sports like horseracing. Position: Oppose the review requirement, backing the government's decision to significantly raise gambling duties as planned without a mandated separate impact assessment EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 13 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Clause 86 stand part Vote on whether Clause 86 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill should remain part of the Bill, as part of the government's annual Finance Bill setting out tax arrangements for the coming year. The debate excerpts reference income tax charges for 2026-27 and pension-related tax provisions, suggesting this clause relates to the government's tax framework. Position: Support the clause remaining in the Finance Bill, backing the government's proposed tax provisions for 2026-27 EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 13 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 9 MPs voted on a Conservative-proposed new clause calling for a review of the impact of freezing income tax thresholds and other tax allowances on taxpayers, particularly those on lower incomes. The government defended its decision to extend the income tax threshold freeze as a revenue-raising measure while rejecting the need for additional formal review requirements. Position: Oppose the review requirement, arguing the government has already published sufficient impact assessments and that the Opposition's criticism is hypocritical given they also froze thresholds when in power EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 13 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 26 A vote on New Clause 26 proposed during the Committee stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, a government budget legislation measure. Without debate excerpts, the precise content of the clause is unknown, but it was rejected by the government-backed majority. Position: Oppose New Clause 26, backing the government's Finance Bill as drafted without this additional provision EconomyTaxationcross-cuttingwith govt | No | 13 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 12 Vote on a Conservative-proposed new clause requiring the government to review and report on how income tax increases on property income (landlords) might affect rent prices. The opposition wanted transparency on whether landlord tax rises would be passed on to tenants. Position: Oppose the review requirement, backing the government's tax changes on property income without mandating an impact assessment on rents EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 12 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 7 Vote on whether to require the government to annually review and potentially uprate the Agricultural Property Relief (APR) allowance in line with rising land values, as part of opposition to the government's changes to inheritance tax relief for farms. Critics argued that fixing the £1 million threshold without inflation-linking it would over time drag more family farms into paying inheritance tax as land prices rise. Position: Oppose the amendment, backing the government's position that the APR changes as designed are sufficient and that a mandatory annual review of the allowance is unnecessary EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 12 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Amendment 3 Vote on an amendment to the Finance Bill that would require HMRC to notify taxpayers who are dragged into paying income tax for the first time, or into a higher tax band, as a result of frozen income tax thresholds. The freeze means inflation gradually pulls more people into the tax system without rates being formally raised — critics call this a 'stealth tax'. Position: Oppose the notification requirement, either accepting the current system without such obligations or viewing the amendment as unnecessary given existing communications — effectively defending the government's continued threshold freeze policy. EconomyTaxationcross-cuttingwith govt | No | 12 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Clause 62 stand part Vote on whether Clause 62 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill should remain part of the Bill. This is part of the government's 2026-27 Budget legislation, with the debate also covering income tax charges and other fiscal measures for the coming tax year. Position: Support Clause 62 becoming law as part of the government's Finance Bill, backing the Labour government's fiscal and taxation plans for 2026-27. EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 12 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No.2) Bill Committee: Clause 10 stand part Vote on whether Clause 10 of the Finance (No.2) Bill should remain part of the legislation. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to confirm the clause's exact content, but as a government Finance Bill clause it likely implements a specific tax or fiscal measure from the Budget, and this was a standard committee-stage vote to approve or reject that provision. Position: Support Clause 10 remaining in the Finance Bill, backing the government's proposed tax or fiscal measure EconomyTaxationcentrewith govt | Yes | 12 Jan 2026 |
Opposition Day: Rural communities A Conservative Opposition Day debate motion on rural communities, likely calling on the government to do more to support rural areas. The government voted it down, as is standard practice with opposition motions. Position: Reject the opposition motion, defending the government's existing approach to rural communities and services Agriculture and Rural AffairsRural Servicesleftwith govt | No | 7 Jan 2026 |
