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: Oppose the government's handling of these Lords amendments, likely preferring to accept the Lords' original changes to the bill Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 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: Oppose the government's position, preferring to retain the Lords' amendments as passed in the upper chamber Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 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: Back the Lords' position on this amendment, opposing the government's preferred approach to the relevant provision in the Crime and Policing Bill Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 20 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 357 The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have removed a legal safeguard protecting legitimate political and historical discussion about terrorism from prosecution. The Lords wanted to make it easier to prosecute glorification of terrorist acts by proscribed organisations, but the government argued this risked criminalising genuine political and social debate. Position: Support the Lords amendment, arguing that glorifying acts of terrorism by proscribed organisations should not benefit from the historical safeguard, and that the current law is too permissive Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (Amendment 6) to the Crime and Policing Bill that would have strengthened powers to tackle fly-tipping. The government opposed the Lords change, meaning communities — particularly rural ones — would not get the enhanced enforcement tools the Lords had proposed. Position: Support the Lords' amendment to introduce tougher measures against fly-tipping, arguing rural communities and landowners need stronger legal protections and enforcement powers Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 333 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (no. 333, tabled by Baroness Buscombe) to the Crime and Policing Bill, which the government opposed. Critics argued the Lords change represented a major shift in the relationship between the state and individuals and had not received adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Position: Oppose removing Lords Amendment 333, arguing it contained important protections and deserved proper parliamentary consideration Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 334 The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have completely abolished non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). The government argued the Lords amendment was unnecessary because it had already moved to scrap the existing NCHI code of practice and accepted a College of Policing review recommending a tougher new national standard instead. Position: Back the Lords amendment to fully abolish non-crime hate incidents in law, arguing the government's alternative does not go far enough to protect free speech and civil liberties Crime and PolicingPolicingcentreagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 359 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have proscribed Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. The Conservative opposition argued the IRGC poses a direct threat to people in the UK and that proscription was overdue, while the government maintained it preferred existing measures such as the foreign influence registration scheme. Position: Support the Lords amendment to proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, arguing it poses a direct and serious threat to people in the UK and that current measures are insufficient Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2 The government asked MPs to reject a Lords amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill (the largest criminal justice bill in a generation), instead offering its own alternative measures. The bill covers knife crime, violence against women and girls, antisocial behaviour, and online harms including AI-generated intimate images. Position: Support retaining the Lords amendment as passed, disagreeing with the government's proposed substitution Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice SystemPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to agree with all remaining Lords Amendments MPs voted on whether to accept the remaining Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, a wide-ranging policing and criminal justice bill. This was a package vote covering multiple Lords changes, some of which the government accepted, others it rejected and replaced with alternative provisions, including on civil liberties issues such as freedom of expression and religion. Position: Support accepting the package of Lords amendments (including government-negotiated compromises) to finalise the Crime and Policing Bill Crime and PolicingPolicingcentrewith govt | Yes | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 11 MPs voted on whether to reject Lords Amendment 11 to the Crime and Policing Bill. The Government moved to disagree with this Lords change, meaning the Commons would override what the unelected House of Lords had added to the Bill. Position: Support keeping Lords Amendment 11, backing the Lords' addition to the Crime and Policing Bill against the Government's wishes Crime and PolicingPolicingproceduralagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 311 The Commons voted on whether to reject Lords Amendment 311 to the Crime and Policing Bill, with the government opposing this Lords change (which critics said was added late without adequate scrutiny) and offering its own alternative approach instead, in the context of wider debates about violence against women and girls and online harms. Position: Support retaining the Lords' amendment 311, opposing the government overriding the Lords' change to the Bill Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Opposition Day Motion: Oil and Gas Parliament voted on an opposition-proposed motion about oil and gas policy. Opposition Day motions are brought by parties not in government, and this vote signals a political divide over the future of North Sea oil and gas extraction under the Labour government. Position: Support the opposition's position on oil and gas, likely backing continued or expanded North Sea production and opposing Labour's restrictions on new licences EnergyEnvironmentrightagainst govt | Yes | 24 Mar 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 The Commons voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill. The government, backed by Labour MPs, overturned Lords Amendment 6, restoring its original position on employer NI contributions to pensions. Position: Support keeping Lords Amendment 6, backing the change the House of Lords made to the employer NI pension contributions rules PensionsTaxationrightagainst govt | No | 23 Mar 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2 The Lords had amended the National Insurance Bill to protect lower and middle earners from the impact of increased employer pension contribution taxes (including concerns about salary sacrifice arrangements). The Commons voted to reject that Lords amendment, allowing the original Bill to stand without those protections. Position: Support keeping the Lords' amendment, which sought to protect lower and middle earners — including those using salary sacrifice pension arrangements — from the knock-on effects of higher employer national insurance on pension contributions. PensionsTaxationleftagainst govt | No | 23 Mar 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3 The House of Commons voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill. The Lords had added Amendment 3, and the government moved to overturn it, meaning the original bill provisions would be restored if the Aye side won. Position: Support retaining the Lords' amendment, disagreeing with the government's approach to employer National Insurance contributions on pensions PensionsTaxationrightagainst govt | No | 23 Mar 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 The government asked MPs to reject a Lords amendment (Amendment 5) to the National Insurance Contributions Bill. The Lords had sought to change the government's plan to raise employer National Insurance contributions on pension contributions, which critics argue discourages pension saving and burdens small businesses. Position: Support the Lords amendment, opposing the NI increase on employer pension contributions — particularly to protect small businesses, charities, and pension saving incentives PensionsTaxationrightagainst govt | No | 23 Mar 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 The government voted to reject a change made by the House of Lords to a bill increasing National Insurance on employer pension contributions under salary sacrifice arrangements. The Lords had amended the bill, but the government moved to overturn that amendment and proceed with the original policy. Position: Support the Lords' amendment, opposing the government's extension of National Insurance to employer pension contributions under salary sacrifice arrangements PensionsTaxationrightagainst govt | No | 23 Mar 2026 |
Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Vote on regulations to raise university tuition fees in England by 2.71% for 2026-27. The Labour government backed the increase, while opposition MPs (Conservatives) criticised it as an added burden on young people, despite their own party having nearly tripled fees in 2012. Position: Oppose the tuition fee increase, arguing it adds to the financial burden on young people in a difficult labour market EducationHigher Educationcentreagainst govt | No | 18 Mar 2026 |
Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 Vote on regulations giving the new Fair Work Agency (created by the Employment Rights Act 2025) the same investigatory powers previously held by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, including surveillance tools. Conservatives argued these state-level surveillance powers were disproportionate for a labour enforcement body; the Lib Dems backed the government. Position: Oppose granting the Fair Work Agency extensive surveillance powers, arguing they are disproportionate for a labour enforcement agency and represent state overreach Constitution and DemocracyEmploymentrightagainst govt | No | 18 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: Oppose the Bill, citing concerns that reforms could undermine jury trial rights and disproportionately harm defendants from black and minority ethnic backgrounds Constitution and Democracycentreagainst govt | No | 10 Mar 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 blocking the Courts and Tribunals Bill, opposing changes to the criminal justice system including potential reductions in jury trial eligibility Constitution and Democracyrightagainst govt | Yes | 10 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 Lords amendment to strengthen protections for sibling relationships among looked-after children, disagreeing that existing or planned reforms are sufficient EducationSchoolsrightagainst govt | No | 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: Prefer the Lords' original amendment, potentially seeking a broader or differently framed entitlement on free school meals or child poverty measures EducationSchoolsrightagainst govt | No | 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 Lords amendment to ban under-16s from social media, arguing this is necessary to protect children from harmful algorithms and content EducationSchoolscentreagainst govt | No | 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 the Lords amendment introducing a direct price cap on branded school uniform items as a better way to reduce costs for parents EducationSchoolsrightagainst govt | No | 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: Oppose restricting good and outstanding schools from admitting more pupils, arguing parental choice drives school improvement and popular schools should be allowed to grow EducationSchoolsrightagainst govt | No | 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: Back the Lords amendment requiring a formal review of funding for adoptive and special guardian families, arguing greater scrutiny and accountability is needed EducationSchoolscentreagainst govt | No | 9 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 Lords amendment to enshrine a mobile phone ban in schools in law, rather than relying on government guidance EducationSchoolscentreagainst govt | No | 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: Back the Lords amendment requiring parental consent for referrals to child protection support, arguing this would better safeguard children like Sara Sharif EducationSchoolsrightagainst govt | No | 9 Mar 2026 |