Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 15 The Lords had amended the Pension Schemes Bill to remove or restrict a government power to direct how pension funds must invest ('mandation power'). The Commons voted on whether to reject that Lords amendment and reinstate the government's original approach, which critics called an unjustified government 'power grab' over pension investments. Position: Support the Lords amendment, opposing the government's power to mandate where pension funds invest, arguing it is wrong in principle and threatens pensioners' interests PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 78 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Pension Schemes Bill. The Lords had added Amendment 78, which the government opposed; voting Aye supported overturning the Lords' change, while voting No meant keeping it in the Bill. Position: Support retaining Lords Amendment 78, backing the change the House of Lords inserted into the Pension Schemes Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementproceduralagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 35 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Pension Schemes Bill — a Bill aimed at improving pension returns for savers through consolidation and better asset management. The government wanted to remove Lords Amendment 35, while the Lords had sought to modify the Bill in some way not fully detailed in the available debate excerpts. Position: Support retaining the Lords' Amendment 35, backing the change the upper chamber made to the Pension Schemes Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementcentreagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill that would have blocked ministers from being able to direct how pension funds invest savers' money. The Lords had passed the amendment to remove or limit this 'mandation power', which critics called an unacceptable government power grab over people's private savings. Position: Back the Lords amendment, opposing giving ministers the power to direct how private pension funds invest savers' money PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 77 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment requiring a review of the cost and long-term sustainability of public sector pension schemes. The Lords wanted transparency about the growing financial liabilities of public sector pensions, which are largely funded from current taxation rather than investment funds. Position: Support the Lords amendment requiring a review of public sector pension scheme costs and long-term sustainability, arguing greater transparency is needed about taxpayer liabilities PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 26 The Lords had amended the Pension Schemes Bill to protect smaller, well-run pension schemes from being forced to merge into larger ones, arguing that good performance matters more than sheer size. This vote was on whether to reject that Lords amendment, meaning the government wanted to keep the original 'scale requirement' without exemptions for smaller schemes. Position: Support the Lords amendment, protecting well-performing smaller pension schemes from forced mergers and preserving competition and innovation in the pensions sector PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pensions Scheme Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 The Commons voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Pensions Scheme Bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific content of Lords Amendment 5 cannot be determined, but the government (Labour) sought to overturn it and restore its original position. Position: Support retaining the Lords' amendment to the Pensions Scheme Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementproceduralagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have expanded victims' rights, including broader access to free court transcripts and stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences. The government argued it already plans to deliver free sentencing remarks for victims and wants to ensure any further changes are workable before committing to them. Position: Support the Lords amendment, backing stronger victims' rights now including wider access to free court transcripts and enhanced ability to challenge unduly lenient sentences Crime & Policingcentreagainst govt | No | 25 Mar 2026 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2 The government moved to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have expanded victims' rights — including broader access to free court transcripts and stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences. The government argued it supports these goals in principle but wants to implement them differently, while opposition parties said the Lords amendments were sensible and should be kept. Position: Oppose removing the Lords amendment, arguing it should be kept to guarantee victims stronger rights to free court transcripts and to challenge unduly lenient sentences now, rather than relying on future government promises Crime & Policingproceduralagainst govt | No | 25 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 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: New Clause 11 Vote on a Liberal Democrat amendment requiring the government to index the thresholds for the inheritance tax relief on agricultural land to inflation and rising land values, rather than keeping them fixed. Lib Dem and other MPs argued that static thresholds would erode the relief over time and hurt family farmers. Position: Support indexing agricultural inheritance tax thresholds to inflation and rising land values to protect family farmers from fiscal drag EconomyTaxationrightagainst govt | Yes | 11 Mar 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 6 Vote on whether to abolish the Agricultural Property Relief (APR) inheritance tax changes targeting family farms — Amendment 6, tabled by the Conservatives, sought to remove the Government's proposed reform that limits inheritance tax relief on agricultural property, which critics argue threatens family farms. Position: Support removing the Government's inheritance tax changes on agricultural property, arguing the policy harms family farms and is based on false claims about farmers' wealth EconomyTaxationrightagainst govt | Yes | 11 Mar 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 5 A Conservative amendment to the Finance Bill concerning income tax thresholds. The Conservatives argued that Labour's approach of higher taxes, spending and borrowing is harming families and businesses, while Labour MPs defended their fiscal decisions as necessary to restore public finances and invest in public services. Position: Support the Conservative amendment on income tax thresholds, signalling opposition to Labour's tax and spending approach EconomyTaxationrightagainst govt | Yes | 11 Mar 2026 |
Representation of the People Bill: Reasoned Amendment A vote on a 'reasoned amendment' to block the Representation of the People Bill from proceeding to its next stage. The Bill, introduced by the Labour government, includes measures such as extending voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds — a Labour manifesto commitment. A reasoned amendment is an opposition attempt to reject the Bill at Second Reading by citing objections to its principles. Position: Support blocking the Representation of the People Bill, opposing measures such as votes at 16 and other electoral reforms proposed by the Labour government Constitution and DemocracyElectoral Reformrightagainst govt | Yes | 2 Mar 2026 |
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 Vote on whether to extend the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to cover maritime shipping activities, requiring ships to purchase carbon allowances for their emissions. The opposition raised concerns about the cost impact on ferry services to UK islands, though Scottish islands were exempted. Position: Oppose extending the ETS to maritime activities, citing concerns about increased costs for ferry travel to UK islands and questioning the impact on island communities Climate ChangeEnvironmentrightagainst govt | No | 11 Feb 2026 |
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 Vote on a statutory instrument that amends the UK Emissions Trading Scheme from 2027, reducing the supply of free carbon allowances given to businesses — effectively increasing the carbon price they face. The opposition argued this would raise energy bills for households and businesses, while the government backed it as part of meeting climate targets. Position: Oppose the reduction in free carbon allowances, arguing it raises the carbon tax on businesses and will increase household energy bills Climate ChangeEnvironmentrightagainst govt | No | 4 Feb 2026 |
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill: Second Reading MPs voted on whether to pass a bill removing the two-child limit on Universal Credit, which currently restricts child welfare payments to the first two children in a family. The government argued the policy traps children in poverty and has failed to achieve its stated aims, while opponents defended it as encouraging personal responsibility. Position: Support removing the two-child limit on Universal Credit, allowing families to receive welfare support for all their children and reducing child poverty Universal CreditWelfare and Benefitsleftwith govt | Yes | 3 Feb 2026 |
Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026 MPs voted on whether to approve new fee regulations for medical devices, which update the charges paid by manufacturers to the medicines regulator (MHRA) for market surveillance and approval. The government revised earlier proposals after concerns that original fee increases would disproportionately burden small and medium-sized businesses in the life sciences sector. Position: Oppose the fee regulations, citing concerns about unpredictability of costs for businesses and the cumulative regulatory burden on medical device manufacturers Healthcentreagainst govt | No | 28 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: Oppose Clause 10, seeking to remove this specific tax or fiscal provision from the Finance Bill EconomyTaxationcentreagainst 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: Oppose Clause 62, rejecting this element of the government's Finance Bill — likely the Conservative opposition challenging the government's tax and spending decisions. EconomyTaxationrightagainst 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: Support requiring HMRC to proactively inform people when frozen tax thresholds cause them to start paying income tax or move into a higher rate band, increasing transparency around the stealth tax effect. EconomyTaxationcross-cuttingagainst govt | Yes | 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: Support requiring an annual assessment of uprating the APR allowance to keep pace with rising agricultural land values, protecting family farms from the long-term erosion of inheritance tax relief EconomyTaxationrightagainst 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: Support greater government attention and resources for rural communities, backing the opposition's criticism of Labour's rural policy Agriculture and Rural AffairsRural Servicesrightagainst govt | Yes | 7 Jan 2026 |
Opposition Day: Jury trials The opposition brought forward a motion on jury trials, likely seeking to protect or expand the right to trial by jury. This is an Opposition Day debate, meaning the government was expected to vote against the motion. Position: Support protecting or strengthening the right to jury trials in the criminal justice system Constitution and DemocracyCrime & Policingcross-cuttingagainst govt | Yes | 7 Jan 2026 |
Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to insist on disagreement to Lords Amendment 48B but to propose Government amendment (a) and (b) in lieu of LA48B MPs voted to reject a Lords amendment (48B) to the Employment Rights Bill and replace it with a government compromise on zero-hours contracts and unfair dismissal protections, including bringing forward unfair dismissal protections to 1 January 2027 for workers with six months' service, rather than accepting the Lords' version. Position: Oppose the government's compromise, either preferring the Lords' stronger amendment or rejecting the underlying workers' rights measures EconomyEmploymentrightagainst govt | No | 8 Dec 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to insist on disagreement to Lords Amendment 1B but to propose Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords Amendment 1B The Lords had amended the Employment Rights Bill to shift the 'right to guaranteed hours' so that workers would have to request guaranteed hours from their employer, rather than employers being required to proactively offer them. The government rejected this Lords change and proposed its own alternative amendments, keeping the duty on employers to offer guaranteed hours to eligible workers. Position: Prefer the Lords' amendment placing the initiative on workers to request guaranteed hours, giving employers more flexibility EconomyEmploymentrightagainst govt | No | 8 Dec 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to insist on disagreement to LA62 but not to insist on Commons Amendment 62C and to propose Gov (a) in lieu of LA62 MPs voted on the government's position regarding Lords Amendment 62 to the Employment Rights Bill, which relates to protections against unfair dismissal. The government proposed its own alternative amendment in lieu of the Lords' version, seeking to bring in unfair dismissal protections from 1 January 2027 for employees already having six months' service, rather than waiting the full qualifying period. Position: Oppose the government's handling of unfair dismissal reforms, either preferring the Lords' original amendment or opposing the expansion of unfair dismissal protections altogether as damaging to employment and businesses EconomyEmploymentrightagainst govt | No | 8 Dec 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: Government motion not to insist on Commons Amendment 72C but to disagree with LA72D to LA72H and to propose Gov (a) and (b) in lieu of LA72D to LA72H A Lords-Commons ping-pong vote on the Employment Rights Bill, where the government proposed its own compromise amendments (a) and (b) in place of Lords amendments 72D–72H, which the Commons had previously rejected. This is part of the ongoing negotiation between the two Houses over the final shape of the Bill's employment provisions. Position: Prefer the Lords' amendments 72D–72H, or oppose the government's handling of this stage of the Employment Rights Bill ping-pong process EconomyEmploymentrightagainst govt | No | 8 Dec 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to insist on disagreement to LA23 and LA106 to LA120, not to insist on Commons Amendment 120C, 120D and 120E but to propose Gov (a) to (f) in lieu of LA23 and LA106 to LA120 The House voted to reject Lords amendments that would have altered provisions on guaranteed hours and related worker protections in the Employment Rights Bill, instead substituting the Government's own alternative amendments. This is part of ongoing 'ping-pong' between the Commons and Lords over key elements of the Bill, with the Government seeking to pass its version of new employment rights rather than the Lords' preferred changes. Position: Prefer the Lords' amendments over the Government's alternatives, or oppose the Bill's approach to workers' rights more broadly EconomyEmploymentrightagainst govt | No | 8 Dec 2025 |
