Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026 MPs voted to approve regulations extending the government's powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022 for a further period, allowing ministers to continue measures aimed at reducing the burden of energy policy costs on household bills, including shifting some renewables obligation funding away from direct consumer charges. Position: Support extending the government's legal powers to manage and reduce energy costs for households and businesses, including flexibility over how renewable energy policy costs are funded Energyenergy-policyleftwith govt | Yes | 22 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 41 The Commons voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific content of Lords Amendment 41 is unknown, but voting Aye meant siding with the Labour government in overturning the Lords' change. Position: Support the government's position by rejecting Lords Amendment 41 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Governmentcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 37 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to specify what Lords Amendment 37 proposed, but the government sought to remove it, and a majority of MPs backed the government's position. Position: Support the government's decision to reject Lords Amendment 37 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Governmentcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 36 The government asked MPs to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to specify what Lords Amendment 36 proposed, but voting Aye meant siding with the government in overturning that Lords change. Position: Support the government's position by rejecting the Lords' amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 13 The government asked MPs to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to say exactly what Lords Amendment 13 proposed, but MPs were deciding whether to override the Lords and restore the government's original text on this aspect of English devolution. Position: Support the government's position by rejecting the Lords' amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 4 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific content of Lords Amendment 4 is unknown, but the government sought to overturn it, meaning the Lords' modification to this devolution legislation will not stand if the Aye side prevails. Position: Support the government's position by rejecting Lords Amendment 4 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, restoring the Bill to its pre-Lords form on this point Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 98 The Commons voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts, the precise content of Lords Amendment 98 is unknown, but voting Aye meant siding with the government in overturning what the Lords had added or changed. Position: Support the government's position by rejecting Lords Amendment 98 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, restoring the Bill to its pre-amendment form Devolution and Local PowersLocal Governmentcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 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 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 |
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 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 |
Opposition Day Motion: Defence The opposition brought forward a motion on defence policy for debate and a vote. Opposition Day motions allow the opposition to set the agenda and challenge the government's approach — in this case on defence, likely concerning spending commitments or military capability. Position: Reject the opposition's motion, backing the government's existing defence policy and spending plans Defence and Foreign AffairsDefence Spendingcross-cuttingwith govt | No | 24 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 the government's position by rejecting the Lords' amendment to the National Insurance employer pensions contributions legislation PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 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 the government rejecting Lords Amendment 6, maintaining the original bill's approach to employer National Insurance on pension contributions PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 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 rejecting the Lords' amendment and keeping the original Bill, which increases employer national insurance on pension contributions without the additional safeguards for lower and middle earners that the Lords proposed. PensionsTaxationrightwith govt | Yes | 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 government overriding the Lords and pressing ahead with increasing employer National Insurance on pension contributions without the Lords' proposed protection PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 23 Mar 2026 |
Opposition day motion: student loans An opposition party brought forward a motion calling for changes to the student loans system, likely addressing issues such as repayment terms, interest rates, or debt levels. Opposition day motions are symbolic but signal where parties stand on an issue; the government voted it down. Position: Oppose the opposition's proposed changes to student loans, either defending the current system or rejecting the specific framing of the motion EducationHigher Educationrightwith govt | No | 18 Mar 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: 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: 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 |
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 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 |
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 |
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 |
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: Support updated medical device fee regulations, accepting the government's revised approach that attempts to balance regulatory funding with protecting SMEs in the life sciences industry Healthcentrewith govt | Yes | 28 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 |
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 |
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 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Clause 63 Stand part Vote on whether to include Clause 63 in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which would introduce a tax charge on certain pension interests. This is part of the government's wider package of tax measures for the 2026-27 financial year. Position: Support taxing certain pension interests as part of the government's fiscal package EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 13 Jan 2026 |
