Children's School and Wellbeing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Amendments 38V to 38X
272Ayes
64Noes
Carried · majority 208 · Government won311 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 272 · No 64 · DNV 311 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted 272 to 64 on 27 April 2026 to pass a motion relating to Lords Amendments 38V to 38X in the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The government's position carried comfortably. The available data does not specify the precise content of these amendments, nor whether the Commons was accepting or rejecting the Lords' changes, so the exact policy substance cannot be stated with confidence. The vote is one stage in the extended back-and-forth between the Commons and the Lords known as parliamentary ping-pong, where the two chambers exchange amendments until they reach agreement. The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill covers a broad range of provisions touching on child welfare, school standards, and related safeguarding matters. The issue categories attached to this division indicate the amendments concern child wellbeing, mental health in schools, or school safeguarding, but without Hansard debate extracts, the specific policy change being settled cannot be described precisely. Labour and its Co-operative Party partners voted unanimously in favour, providing the bulk of the 272 ayes. The Liberal Democrats, by contrast, voted almost entirely against, with 56 of their MPs in the no lobby. The Democratic Unionist Party, Traditional Unionist Voice, and Ulster Unionist Party also voted no. The Scottish National Party and the Green Party both voted with the government. No Conservative votes are recorded in the data, suggesting the party either had no members present or had no vote recorded for this division.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position on Lords Amendments 38V to 38X to the Children's School and Wellbeing Bill
Voting No meant
Oppose the government's position, preferring to retain or restore the Lords' version of these amendments
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
238
0
123
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
56
15
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
26
0
16
Independent
—
1
5
7
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
5
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Defending the government's amended timeline as swift and firm, emphasizing mandatory action within 21 months and a real intention to move faster by end of year, whilst consulting on mechanism rather than whether to act.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,921 words) →
Welcoming the government's movement on age restrictions as a major victory after sustained opposition pressure, but cautioning that the 21-month timeline is acceptable only if the government acts faster in practice.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (752 words) →
Questioning whether 21 months can credibly be called swift action when parents expect faster intervention.Unknown · Voted no · Read full speech (72 words) →
Disappointed by the 21-month timeline, favouring Baroness Kidron's alternative (eight months to lay, 12 months total) and pressing for urgent cross-party action to protect children from online harms.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (825 words) →
Praising the government for consulting carefully before acting, contrasting this rigour with Opposition opportunism; noting Australian Labour's success with age restrictions.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (552 words) →
Welcoming the government's commitment but pressing for the shortest possible timeframe, warning that delay past 2026 will leave children vulnerable and benefit only tech companies.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (531 words) →
Supporting the decision to raise the social media age limit to 16 and commending cross-party collaboration, but signalling that parents will hold the government accountable for delivery.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (485 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0