Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 16
309
Ayes
—
181
Noes
Passed · Government won
157 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened**: On 9 March 2026, the House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 16 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The motion to disagree with the amendment passed by 309 votes to 181, meaning the government's original text on education policy will be reinstated rather than the version modified by the House of Lords. **Why it matters**: By rejecting this Lords amendment, the Commons pushed back the bill's school-related provisions to the government's preferred form. The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill covers a wide range of issues affecting children in England, including school standards, admissions, and support frameworks. Removing the Lords' modification means the policy as designed by the government -- rather than as revised by the upper chamber -- will proceed, with direct implications for how schools, local authorities, and families interact with the state education system. **The politics**: The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 307 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's position, while Conservatives (97), Liberal Democrats (61), Greens (4), Plaid Cymru (4), Reform UK (4), and the Democratic Unionist Party (3) all voted to retain the Lords amendment. There were no notable Labour rebels. This vote was one of several on the same day in which the Commons disagreed with Lords amendments to the same bill, suggesting a broad government strategy to restore its original drafting across multiple clauses of the legislation.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of a mandatory funding review for the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund, trusting existing ministerial commitments are sufficient
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment requiring a formal review of funding for adoptive and special guardian families, arguing greater scrutiny and accountability is needed
490 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 157 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
278
0
84
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
97
19
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
61
11
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
2
7
4
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
1
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
—
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
—
Your Party
0
1
—
Government should reject Lords amendments on phone bans and social media age restrictions; consultation and regulation-making powers allow faster, more responsive action than statutory legislation.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,099 words) →
Government should accept Lords amendments for statutory phone bans, social media age restrictions, cost caps on school uniforms, and heightened child protection consent requirements; the Government is blocking sensible cross-party improvements out of tribal ideology.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (3,008 words) →
Support a price cap on school uniforms and strengthen adoption/guardianship funding; on social media, reject the Government's consultation framework and demand concrete timelines and commitment to action, not discretionary powers.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,581 words) →
Welcome free school meals and allergy safety measures; urge Government to strengthen guidance on sibling contact in care and school uniform costs, though consultation on social media is justified given stakeholder disagreement.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,085 words) →
Benedict's law on school allergy safety is essential and must be enacted with full statutory force and proper funding; welcome Government's shift but demand full implementation and early sight of amendment wording.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,170 words) →
Age-gate specific harmful functionalities rather than entire social media platforms; support Government consultation to ensure effective, durable, future-proofed legislation rather than hastily-passed bans.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (636 words) →
Any social media or functionality restrictions must be clearly targeted, evidence-based, and effective; blanket bans risk unintended consequences and distract from holding tech companies accountable for existing harms.Scottish National Party · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (831 words) →
Lords amendment 17 on sibling contact in care should be accepted; guidance is insufficient—siblings deserve legal protection equivalent to parental contact rights.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (178 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0