Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 44
315
Ayes
—
109
Noes
Passed · Government won
225 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened**: On 9 March 2026, the House of Commons voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 44 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, by 315 votes to 109. This means MPs rejected a change that the House of Lords had inserted into the Bill, restoring the government's original position on that particular provision. The government won comfortably, with its majority intact. **Why it matters**: The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a wide-ranging piece of legislation covering child protection, school standards, and education governance. Lords Amendment 44 represented one of several changes the unelected upper chamber sought to make to the Bill. By voting to disagree, the Commons sent the amendment back to the Lords -- a process known as "ping-pong," where the two chambers exchange amendments until they reach agreement or one side backs down. Without the full text of Amendment 44 or Hansard debate extracts for this specific division, the precise policy change at stake cannot be detailed, but the vote sits within a broader pattern of the government defending its original approach to school governance and children's education on the same evening. **The politics**: The division followed strict party lines. All 307 Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government, as did the four Green MPs and a small number of smaller-party representatives. The 109 votes against came overwhelmingly from the 97 Conservative MPs who voted, joined by several independents, the DUP, TUV, and one Reform UK MP. There were no notable Labour rebels. This vote was one of at least four ping-pong divisions on the same Bill on the same day, suggesting the Lords had made substantial changes that the government was systematically reversing.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, keeping the existing approach where families can be referred to support programmes without a new consent requirement
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment requiring parental consent for referrals to child protection support, arguing this would better safeguard children like Sara Sharif
424 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 225 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
279
0
83
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
97
19
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
2
7
4
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
1
7
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
1
Plaid Cymru
0
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
1
0
—
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_vote_recorded · 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