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 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have created a new statutory duty on the government to notify victims and help them apply to compensation schemes out of time. The government argued the duty was duplicative and confusing, preferring to develop their own approach; the opposition said the Lords change would strengthen victims' rights. Position: Support retaining the Lords amendment to create a statutory duty giving victims stronger rights to notification and access to compensation schemes, arguing the government's promises are insufficient Crime & Policingcentreagainst govt | No | 25 Mar 2026 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 The Commons voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment that would have given victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences and made the criminal justice system more transparent. The government argued the amendment had drafting flaws that could create legal uncertainty and a flood of unmeritorious appeals, while opposition MPs accused the government of stripping victims of important rights. Position: Support keeping the Lords amendment to give victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences and improve transparency in the criminal justice system Crime & Policingproceduralagainst govt | No | 25 Mar 2026 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 4 The government voted to overturn a Lords amendment related to the financing of private prosecutions. The Lords had added rules about how private prosecutions are funded, but the government sought to remove this change from the Victims and Courts Bill. Position: Support keeping the Lords amendment on private prosecution financing, arguing it adds transparency and stronger protections within the criminal justice system Crime & Policingproceduralagainst 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 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have given victims stronger rights to access court transcripts and challenge unduly lenient sentences. The Lords wanted greater transparency in the criminal justice system for victims, but the government argued it was prioritising free sentencing remarks first and would consider further steps later. Position: Support the Lords amendment, backing greater transparency in the criminal justice system and stronger rights for victims to access court transcripts and challenge lenient sentences Crime & Policingcentreagainst govt | No | 25 Mar 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 |
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: Support reviewing or reforming the student loans system, potentially to reduce the burden on graduates through lower interest rates, better repayment terms, or wider debt relief EducationHigher Educationleftagainst govt | Yes | 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 |
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 |
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 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 |
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 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 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 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 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 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 |
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 |
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: Oppose removing the two-child limit, likely citing fiscal cost concerns or preference for keeping existing welfare constraints Universal CreditWelfare and Benefitsrightagainst 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: 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 |
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: Oppose removing the two-child limit, arguing it encourages personal responsibility and that the state should not subsidise choices to have larger families Universal CreditWelfare and Benefitsrightagainst govt | No | 3 Feb 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 |
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: Support protecting basic rate taxpayers from the £2,000 pension contributions cap, arguing the cap unfairly burdens ordinary workers and discourages long-term pension saving EconomyPensionsTaxationrightagainst govt | Yes | 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: 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 |
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: Oppose the Remedial Order, either because it does not go far enough in addressing human rights concerns, because it still undermines victims' rights and access to justice, or because of broader opposition to the Legacy Act framework Constitution and DemocracyCrime & Policingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 21 Jan 2026 |
