Division · No. 461Wednesday, 25 March 2026Commons Crime & Policing

Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1

291
Ayes
158
Noes
Passed · Government won
197 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened** On 25 March 2026, the House of Commons voted by 291 to 158 to reject Lords Amendment 1 to the Victims and Courts Bill. The amendment concerned access to free court transcripts for victims, and had been inserted by the House of Lords before the bill returned to the Commons. The government moved to disagree with the Lords on this point, and its position prevailed comfortably. **Why it matters** Lords Amendment 1 would have created a legal right for victims to receive free transcripts of court proceedings. At present, victims who want written records of hearings, including sentencing remarks, can face costs running into thousands of pounds, a barrier that many victims and campaigners have highlighted as preventing them from properly processing and recovering from their experiences. By rejecting the amendment, the government kept the bill in a form that does not include a statutory entitlement to free transcripts, though Ministers indicated in debate that they intend to introduce further measures on this subject. A petition on the issue attracted over 200,000 signatures and was debated in Westminster Hall earlier that same week. **The politics** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 291 Ayes came from Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs, while the 158 Noes were drawn from Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party and several independents. There were no Labour rebels. The government's position attracted criticism not only from opposition parties but from some of its own backbenchers, who pressed Ministers for firmer commitments on timescale. This division was the first in a sequence of six votes on the same day in which the Commons rejected every Lords amendment to the bill, asserting the government's preferred text across the board.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position of rejecting the Lords amendment, preferring a more cautious, phased approach to expanding victims' rights rather than legislating immediately for broader changes
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment, backing stronger victims' rights now including wider access to free court transcripts and enhanced ability to challenge unduly lenient sentences
§ 01Who voted how.449 voting members · 197 absent
Aye293No160DID NOT VOTE · 197

449 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 197 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
268
0
94
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
85
31
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
58
14
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
23
0
19
Independent
2
3
8
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
2
3
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
1
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1
Your Party
0
1
§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Alex Davies-JonesOpposedPontypridd
Government opposes all Lords amendments as unworkable in current form, but committed to bringing forward improved legislation on transcripts and ULS scheme after consultation and operational assessment.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,839 words)
Nick TimothySupportiveWest Suffolk
Supports Lords amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as necessary for transparency, victims' rights, and access to justice; criticises Government for blocking sensible reforms despite claiming to support victims.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,700 words)
Sarah ChampionQuestioningRotherham
Welcomes the Bill's victims focus but confused why Government rejects Lords amendments 1 and 3 on court transcripts when the sentiment aligns with stated objectives.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (117 words)
Steve BarclayOpposedNorth East Cambridgeshire
Criticises Government for inconsistent messaging: claiming to support victims while voting against amendments that would empower them; highlights contradictions between stated commitments and legislative actions.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,122 words)
Ben MaguireSupportiveNorth Cornwall
Supports all Lords amendments, particularly on free court transcripts, ULS scheme reform, and victims code for overseas homicides; urges Government to implement quickly.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (955 words)
Josh ReynoldsSupportiveMaidenhead
Supports Lords amendment 2 on victims code for overseas homicides; emphasises statutory protections needed because guidance alone is insufficient and inconsistently applied.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,712 words)
Lorraine BeaversNeutralBlackpool North and Fleetwood
Supports Government's Bill but urges reconsideration of Lords amendments 5 and 6 on ULS scheme; argues 28-day deadline is too short for traumatised families despite improved notification.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (816 words)
Pam CoxSupportiveColchester
Supports Government rejection of Lords amendments 4 and 7; argues Lord Chancellor needs power to regulate private prosecution costs to control public spending.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (445 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 — Wednesday, 25 March 2026 | Beyond The Vote