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 |
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 |
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 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 |
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 |
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 |
Opposition Day: Youth unemployment An opposition party brought a motion on youth unemployment for debate in the House of Commons, likely calling on the government to take stronger action to tackle joblessness among young people. Opposition Day motions are typically symbolic but signal political priorities. Position: Reject the opposition motion, defending the government's existing approach to youth employment and skills EmploymentSkills and Trainingcross-cuttingwith govt | No | 28 Jan 2026 |
Opposition Day: British Indian Ocean Territory An Opposition Day debate motion on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), likely relating to the controversial deal under which the UK agreed to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. This vote reflects the opposition's challenge to the government's handling of this strategic territory. Position: Reject the opposition motion, backing the Labour government's negotiated position on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos Islands deal Defence and Foreign Affairsleftwith govt | No | 28 Jan 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 |
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 2 Vote on a Conservative-backed amendment (Amendment 2) to the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill that would reintroduce merit-based selection — rewarding academic achievement and exam performance — into the NHS medical specialty training allocation system, which currently allocates places without considering candidates' grades or merit. Position: Oppose reintroducing merit-based allocation to specialty training, preferring the current system which does not rank candidates by academic achievement HealthSkills and Trainingleftwith govt | No | 27 Jan 2026 |
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 1 A vote on an opposition amendment to the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill, which sought to give priority to British citizens in UK foundation and specialty training programmes from 2027. The government defeated the amendment, preferring its own approach to managing medical training places. Position: Oppose this amendment, preferring the government's existing framework for prioritising UK medical graduates without a citizenship-based criterion HealthSkills and Trainingleftwith govt | No | 27 Jan 2026 |
The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 MPs voted on a Remedial Order to amend the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which had been found incompatible with human rights law. The order was designed to address legal concerns about the controversial immunity scheme for Troubles-era offences following court rulings that parts of the original Act breached the European Convention on Human Rights. Position: Support passing the Remedial Order to bring the Troubles Legacy Act into compliance with human rights law, maintaining a reformed framework for dealing with the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles Constitution and DemocracyCrime & Policingcross-cuttingwith 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: Support passing the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, which caps pension contributions under salary sacrifice arrangements at £2,000 EconomyPensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 21 Jan 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill Committee: Amendment 5 Vote on whether to exempt basic rate taxpayers (lower earners) from a £2,000 cap on tax relief for employer pension contributions, so the cap would only apply to higher and additional rate taxpayers. The Conservative opposition proposed this to protect younger workers and those on modest incomes from losing pension savings incentives. Position: Oppose the exemption, defending the government's Bill as introduced and applying the £2,000 cap to all taxpayers regardless of income tax rate EconomyPensionsTaxationleftwith govt | No | 21 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: Oppose the transparency requirement, backing the government's position that such an assessment is unnecessary and that the Bill should proceed without mandated impact calculations on pension values EconomyPensionsTaxationleftwith govt | No | 21 Jan 2026 |
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment that would have required the government to publish the full inflation-adjusted costs of payments to Mauritius under the Diego Garcia treaty, including the methodology used to calculate them. The government argued the financial details were already publicly available; the opposition said the government had never been transparent about the true costs to British taxpayers. Position: Support rejecting the Lords amendment, trusting that existing published financial information is sufficient and no additional transparency requirement is needed Defence and Foreign AffairsMiddle Eastcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 Jan 2026 |
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Diego Garcia Military Base Bill. The Lords had added Amendment 6 to place additional conditions or constraints on the deal; the government asked the Commons to overturn it in order to proceed with the agreement as negotiated. Position: Support the government's position to remove the Lords' additional condition from the Bill, backing the deal as negotiated without further parliamentary constraints imposed by the Lords Defence and Foreign AffairsMiddle Eastcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 Jan 2026 |
Sentencing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 7 The Lords had amended the Sentencing Bill to require courts to provide free transcripts of judges' sentencing remarks within 14 days of a request, and to publish them online. The government rejected this Lords amendment, arguing it could increase judicial workload and worsen the Crown court backlog, proposing its own alternative amendments instead. Position: Support rejecting the Lords amendment requiring free court transcripts of sentencing remarks within 14 days, preferring the government's own alternative approach Crime & PolicingPrisonsproceduralwith govt | Yes | 20 Jan 2026 |
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment to the Diego Garcia/British Indian Ocean Territory Bill. Lords Amendment 1 would have added conditions around notifying Mauritius about military activities on the base, which critics argued would compromise operational security and undermine British sovereignty over the territory. Position: Support rejecting the Lords amendment, backing the government's deal with Mauritius as negotiated without additional notification requirements that could constrain military operations at Diego Garcia Defence and Foreign AffairsMiddle Eastcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 Jan 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: Second Reading Vote on whether to pass a bill that would allow the government to apply National Insurance contributions to salary sacrifice pension contributions above £2,000 per year, coming into force from April 2029. This closes a tax relief loophole that currently benefits higher earners who arrange part of their pay as pension contributions to avoid NICs. Position: Support applying National Insurance to employer pension salary sacrifice arrangements above £2,000 annually from 2029, closing a tax relief that disproportionately benefits higher earners PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 17 Dec 2025 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill: Second Reading MPs voted on whether to approve the Finance (No. 2) Bill at Second Reading, which implements Labour's November 2025 Budget. The Budget includes measures described by the government as building 'strong foundations' while avoiding austerity, though critics raised concerns including the impact of inheritance tax changes on family farms. Position: Support the Finance Bill implementing Labour's Budget, including its tax and spending choices aimed at avoiding austerity and maintaining public services EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 16 Dec 2025 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading (Opposition) MPs voted on an opposition amendment to reject the Finance Bill implementing Labour's Autumn 2025 Budget, with Conservative MPs arguing the Budget's tax changes — including inheritance tax reforms affecting family farms — would harm the private sector and rural communities. Position: Support the Finance Bill and Labour's Budget choices, arguing they build strong economic foundations, avoid austerity, and protect public services without cutting capital spending EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 16 Dec 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to disagree with the Lords in their Amendment 120N to Commons Amendment 120G and their Amendments 120P to 120S to Commons Amendment 120H The government voted to reject Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill that sought to impose consultation, impact assessment, and parliamentary scrutiny requirements on a new late-stage provision (reportedly a £118,000 cap on employment tribunal awards or similar). The Lords had tried to add procedural safeguards arguing the measure was inserted without proper process; the government wanted to proceed without those constraints. Position: Support the government overriding the Lords' procedural safeguards and pressing ahead with the Employment Rights Bill without additional consultation or impact assessment requirements on the disputed provision EconomyEmploymentleftwith govt | Yes | 15 Dec 2025 |
Opposition day: Seasonal work An opposition party brought a motion on seasonal work to a Commons vote, likely calling on the government to address issues facing seasonal agricultural workers such as visa schemes, pay, or working conditions. The government voted it down. Position: Reject the opposition motion on seasonal work, backing the government's existing approach to seasonal labour in agriculture Agriculture and Rural AffairsEmploymentcross-cuttingwith govt | No | 10 Dec 2025 |
Government Amendment to Opposition day debate on seasonal work The government put forward an amendment to change the wording of an opposition-proposed debate motion on seasonal agricultural work, likely to soften or redirect criticism of government policy on seasonal worker visas and rural employment conditions. Position: Support the government's amended version of the motion on seasonal work, accepting the government's framing of its approach to seasonal agricultural labour Agriculture and Rural AffairsEmploymentcentrewith govt | Yes | 10 Dec 2025 |
Opposition day: Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer MPs voted on an opposition motion censuring the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Opposition Day motions like this are typically used by opposition parties to embarrass the government and put its MPs on record defending or condemning a minister's behaviour. Position: Reject the motion, defending the Chancellor's conduct and opposing the opposition's attempt to censure her EconomyPublic Spendingleftwith govt | No | 10 Dec 2025 |
Railways Bill: Second Reading MPs voted on whether to pass the Railways Bill at its Second Reading, which would bring private train operating companies into public ownership and create a new publicly-run national rail operator. The government argued nationalisation would end decades of dysfunction and fragmentation on the railways. Position: Support nationalising rail services under public ownership to improve reliability and coordination of the railway network RailTransportleftwith govt | Yes | 9 Dec 2025 |
Railways Bill: Opposition Reasoned Amendment MPs voted on a reasoned amendment to block the Railways Bill from proceeding to its next stage. The Bill proposes bringing train operating companies into public ownership, with the government arguing nationalisation will improve reliability and end decades of dysfunction, while opponents raised concerns about whether public ownership actually delivers better services. Position: Support the Railways Bill proceeding, backing the government's plan to bring railways into public ownership to improve reliability and performance RailTransportleftwith govt | No | 9 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: Support the government's compromise wording on the disputed employment rights provisions, rejecting the Lords' alternative amendments 72D–72H in favour of the government's own substitute text EconomyEmploymentleftwith govt | Yes | 8 Dec 2025 |
