Division · No. 466Wednesday, 25 March 2026Commons Crime & Policing

Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6

290
Ayes
163
Noes
Passed · Government won
200 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened**: On 25 March 2026, the House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 6 to the Victims and Courts Bill, by 290 votes to 163. The amendment had been inserted by the House of Lords and concerned additional protections or rights for victims in the criminal justice process. The government moved a motion to disagree with the Lords' change, and that motion passed along broadly partisan lines. **Why it matters**: The vote means Lords Amendment 6 does not become part of the Victims and Courts Bill, and the Commons version of the relevant provision is preserved. The bill as a whole is designed to strengthen the position of victims in the criminal justice system, including compelling offenders to attend their own sentencing hearings, restricting parental rights of serious offenders, and improving communications with victims. The government argued that while it supported the aims behind the Lords amendments, they were not workable in their current form, and that it would seek to bring forward its own alternative measures in due course. **The politics**: The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 288 Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs who voted supported the government's position, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party, and Reform UK all voted against. There were no notable cross-party rebels. This division was one of six held on the same day on related Lords amendments to the same bill, all of which the government defeated by similar margins. The broader context is a "ping-pong" (the process by which a bill passes back and forth between the two Houses until both agree) in which the Lords sought to push the government further and faster on victims' rights, particularly on free court transcripts, while the government insisted it needed more time to implement changes in a workable way.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, accepting ministers' assurance they will address victim notification through their own workable legislative changes rather than a parallel statutory duty
Voting No meant
Support retaining the Lords amendment to create a statutory duty giving victims stronger rights to notification and access to compensation schemes, arguing the government's promises are insufficient
§ 01Who voted how.453 voting members · 200 absent
Aye290No160DID NOT VOTE · 200

453 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 200 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
266
0
96
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
84
32
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
58
14
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
22
0
20
Independent
2
5
6
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
2
6
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
3
2
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