Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 102
315
Ayes
—
163
Noes
Passed · Government won
170 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened**: On 9 March 2026, the House of Commons voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 102 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, by 315 votes to 163. This means the Commons rejected a change the House of Lords had inserted into the Bill and restored the government's original wording. The vote is part of the "ping-pong" process (the back-and-forth between the two Houses when they disagree on the text of a Bill). **Why it matters**: Lords Amendment 102 related to children's wellbeing provisions within the Bill. By voting it down, the Commons maintained the government's preferred approach to how schools and related services handle children's welfare. The practical effect depends on the specific wording of the amendment, but in general terms the Commons has blocked an alternative framework the Lords sought to introduce -- meaning the policy as the government designed it remains intact. The Bill as a whole covers a wide range of issues including school regulation, home education oversight, and child protection duties. **The politics**: The vote fell almost entirely along government versus opposition lines. Labour MPs and their Co-operative Party allies voted solidly with the government (307 Ayes in total), while Conservatives (97) and Liberal Democrats (61) voted against -- together forming the bulk of the 163 Noes. The Democratic Unionist Party also voted No. There were no notable Labour rebels. The result mirrors several other Commons rejections of Lords amendments to this Bill on the same day, including divisions on Amendments 106, 16, and 17, all of which the government also won comfortably.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's power to reduce pupil admission numbers at oversubscribed good and outstanding schools, rejecting the Lords' protection of parental choice
Voting No meant
Oppose restricting good and outstanding schools from admitting more pupils, arguing parental choice drives school improvement and popular schools should be allowed to grow
478 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 170 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
280
0
82
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
97
19
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
61
11
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
2
1
10
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
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
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 · 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