Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 106
304
Ayes
—
177
Noes
Passed · Government won
167 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened**: On 9 March 2026, the House of Commons voted to disagree with Amendment 106 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, a Lords amendment the government had declined to accept. The motion passed by 304 votes to 177, with the government's position prevailing. This was one of several votes held on the same day in which the Commons rejected Lords amendments to the same Bill. **Why it matters**: By voting to disagree with Amendment 106, the Commons sends this specific change back to the House of Lords, continuing the parliamentary process known as "ping-pong," in which the two chambers negotiate the final shape of legislation. The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill covers a wide range of education and child welfare policy, and the outcome of these exchanges will determine the final statutory framework governing schools and children's services in England. Without Hansard debate extracts for this particular division, the precise policy substance of Amendment 106 cannot be confirmed from the record, though the Bill's broader scope includes provisions around school structures, home education, attendance, and child protection. **The politics**: The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour MPs -- including those sitting under the Labour and Co-operative Party label -- voted overwhelmingly in favour of disagreeing with the Lords amendment, contributing 303 of the 304 aye votes. Conservatives (98), Liberal Democrats (60), Greens (4), and the Democratic Unionist Party (3) voted against, alongside several independent MPs. There were no notable Labour rebels of significance; one Labour MP voted against the government. This division was one of at least four on the same Bill on the same day, suggesting sustained Lords resistance to elements of the legislation and a government determined to reassert the Commons position across multiple fronts.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position that strengthened guidance is sufficient to enforce mobile phone bans in schools, rejecting a statutory requirement added by the Lords
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment to enshrine a mobile phone ban in schools in law, rather than relying on government guidance
481 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 167 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
274
1
87
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
98
18
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
60
12
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
1
7
5
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 No
0
4
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
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