Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3

**What happened** On 25 March 2026, the House of Commons voted by 286 to 163 to reject Lords Amendment 3 to the Victims and Courts Bill. The amendment had been passed in the House of Lords and concerned provisions relating to victims' access to court transcripts and related rights. The government motion to disagree with the Lords succeeded comfortably, with Labour MPs voting in favour of rejection and opposition parties voting against. This was one of six separate divisions held on the same day as the Commons considered a package of Lords amendments to the Bill. **Why it matters** Lords Amendment 3, along with the closely related Amendment 1, concerned the question of whether victims should be entitled to free court transcripts, including sentencing remarks, as a statutory right. Victims and their families currently face costs that can run into thousands of pounds to obtain transcripts of proceedings in which they were involved. The government's position is that it shares the goal of extending access to free transcripts but argued the Lords amendments were not workable in their current form, preferring to advance the policy through further consultation with the judiciary before legislating. By rejecting the amendment, the Commons has for now left victims without a guaranteed statutory entitlement to free transcripts, though the government has indicated it intends to return to the issue. **The politics** The vote split sharply along party lines. All 285 Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Plaid Cymru, the DUP, Reform UK and most independents voted against. No Labour rebels voted with the Lords position. The result mirrored five other divisions on the same day, in which the Commons rejected Lords Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 by similar margins, suggesting a coordinated government effort to return the Bill substantially to its pre-Lords form. The debate saw some tension, with opposition MPs and even some Labour backbenchers pressing the minister on the pace and specifics of any future legislative commitment on transcripts, and with the Courtsdesk data controversy providing a broader backdrop of concerns about transparency in the justice system.