Pensions Schemes Bill: Govt motion relating to Lords Reason 88D Vote on a government motion relating to Lords Amendment 88D to the Pension Schemes Bill, in which the Commons responded to the Lords' reasoning for their amendment. This is part of parliamentary 'ping-pong' between the two Houses over the content of the Pension Schemes Bill. Position: Support the government's position in rejecting or modifying the Lords' amendment 88D to the Pension Schemes Bill PensionsPensions Policycentrewith govt | Yes | 22 Apr 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Govt Motion to insist on Amdt 38J and disagree with Amdts 38V to 38X The government moved to insist on its own amendment (38J) and reject Lords amendments 38V to 38X in a parliamentary ping-pong exchange on a Constitution and Democracy bill. This vote determined whether the Commons would override the Lords' preferred changes and restore the government's original position. Position: Support the government's version of the legislation (Amendment 38J) and reject the Lords' alternative changes (38V–38X) Constitution and Democracycross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 22 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: Support the government rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping ministers' power to direct pension fund investments in the Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementleftwith govt | Yes | 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 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 the government's rejection of Lords Amendment 78 to the Pension Schemes Bill, restoring the Bill to its pre-Lords form on this point PensionsPensions and Retirementproceduralwith govt | Yes | 15 Apr 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion relating to Lords Amendment 38 MPs voted on whether to accept or reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific content of Lords Amendment 38 cannot be determined, but the vote decided whether the Commons would override the Lords' modification to this legislation covering children's welfare and schools. Position: Support the government's position of rejecting Lords Amendment 38, restoring the original Commons text of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Child WellbeingEducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 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 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 43 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Pension Schemes Bill — a Bill aimed at improving returns for pension savers. The government (Labour) wanted to overturn Lords Amendment 43, restoring its preferred version of the legislation. Position: Support keeping Lords Amendment 43, backing the change the House of Lords made to the Pension Schemes Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
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 government rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the power for the government to direct pension fund investments despite concerns it overrides trustees' duties to members PensionsPensions and Retirementleftwith govt | Yes | 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 |
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 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 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 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 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 |
Opposition day motion: fuel duty The opposition brought forward a motion calling for action on fuel duty, likely opposing a planned increase or calling for a freeze or cut. This matters because fuel duty directly affects the cost of driving for households and businesses across the UK. Position: Support the opposition's position on fuel duty — likely backing a freeze or cut to ease cost-of-living pressures on drivers TaxationTransportrightagainst govt | Yes | 18 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 allowing the Bill to proceed, backing Labour's electoral reforms including extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds Constitution and DemocracyElectoral Reformleftwith govt | No | 2 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: Support the opposition's call for stronger or more urgent action to protect children from online harms, beyond what the government is currently doing Digital and TechnologyOnline Safetycross-cuttingagainst govt | Yes | 24 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: Support adding new reporting requirements on how export finance assistance affects GDP and benefits SMEs, arguing greater transparency and accountability is needed BusinessEconomycross-cuttingagainst govt | Yes | 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: Support blocking UK export finance for goods likely to be re-exported to sanctioned countries like Russia, and for exports linked to modern slavery or human trafficking BusinessEconomycross-cuttingagainst 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: Support adding extra requirements (such as impact assessments or consultation provisions) to the bill removing the two-child limit, going beyond what the government proposed Universal CreditWelfare and Benefitsleftagainst govt | Yes | 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: Support restricting public export finance where goods risk being re-exported to Russia or sanctioned countries, and where exports are linked to modern slavery or human trafficking BusinessEconomycross-cuttingagainst govt | Yes | 23 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 |
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: Support extending carbon pricing to the maritime sector as part of the UK's net zero agenda, accepting that higher costs for shipping and ferries are a necessary part of decarbonising transport Climate ChangeEnvironmentleftwith govt | Yes | 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: Support reducing free carbon allowances in the UK ETS, accepting higher carbon costs as necessary to meet climate commitments Climate ChangeEnvironmentleftwith govt | Yes | 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 |
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 9 Vote on whether to amend the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill to give priority in NHS specialty training to British citizens, regardless of where they trained. Supporters argued this would help British students who trained abroad (e.g. in Cyprus or Grenada) return to practise in the UK, while opponents argued it could be counterproductive as NHS experience matters more than citizenship. Position: Oppose using citizenship as the primary criterion for training priority, preferring to prioritise those with UK medical qualifications and NHS experience regardless of nationality HealthSkills and Trainingleftwith govt | No | 27 Jan 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 Vote on a new clause that would require the government to calculate and publish the impact on lifetime pension values before and after the changes in this Bill, which caps tax relief on employer pension contributions. The Conservative opposition pushed this transparency measure, arguing the Bill harms pension saving for ordinary workers. Position: Support requiring the government to publish an assessment of how this Bill changes lifetime pension values, arguing taxpayers deserve to know the real cost to their retirement savings EconomyPensionsTaxationrightagainst govt | Yes | 21 Jan 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: Third Reading Final vote on a bill that introduces a £2,000 cap on pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements (optional remuneration). The opposition argued it would harm pension saving, particularly for lower and middle income earners and younger workers, while the government backed the bill. Position: Oppose the bill, arguing it attacks pension saving and disproportionately harms basic rate taxpayers, younger workers, and middle-income earners EconomyPensionsTaxationrightagainst govt | No | 21 Jan 2026 |
