Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Govt Motion to insist on Amdt 38J and disagree with Amdts 38V to 38X The government moved to insist on its own amendment (38J) and reject Lords amendments 38V to 38X in a parliamentary ping-pong exchange on a Constitution and Democracy bill. This vote determined whether the Commons would override the Lords' preferred changes and restore the government's original position. Position: Prefer the Lords' amendments (38V–38X) over the government's amendment (38J), siding with the upper chamber's position Constitution and Democracycross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 22 Apr 2026 |
Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026 MPs voted to approve regulations extending the government's powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022 for a further period, allowing ministers to continue measures aimed at reducing the burden of energy policy costs on household bills, including shifting some renewables obligation funding away from direct consumer charges. Position: Support extending the government's legal powers to manage and reduce energy costs for households and businesses, including flexibility over how renewable energy policy costs are funded Energyenergy-policyleftwith govt | Yes | 22 Apr 2026 |
Pensions Schemes Bill: Govt motion relating to Lords Reason 88D Vote on a government motion relating to Lords Amendment 88D to the Pension Schemes Bill, in which the Commons responded to the Lords' reasoning for their amendment. This is part of parliamentary 'ping-pong' between the two Houses over the content of the Pension Schemes Bill. Position: Support the government's position in rejecting or modifying the Lords' amendment 88D to the Pension Schemes Bill PensionsPensions Policycentrewith govt | Yes | 22 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Reason 342B Vote on a procedural motion relating to a Lords amendment (342B) to the Crime and Policing Bill, where the Commons considered the Lords' reasoning for a change to the bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific policy substance cannot be determined, but this reflects a disagreement between the Commons and Lords over a provision in the bill. Position: Support the Lords' position or reasoning on amendment 342B, opposing the Commons majority view Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 20 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Amendments 2D and 2E The Commons voted on a motion relating to Lords Amendments 2D and 2E to the Crime and Policing Bill. Without debate excerpts, the precise content of these Lords amendments is unknown, but this vote determined whether the Commons accepted or rejected changes the House of Lords had made to the Bill. Position: Oppose the government's position, preferring to retain the Lords' amendments as passed in the upper chamber Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 20 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating Lords Reasons 359B and 439B Vote on a procedural motion in the Crime and Policing Bill concerning the government's response to two specific Lords amendments (359B and 439B). Without debate excerpts, the exact substance of those Lords amendments is unknown, but the Commons was deciding whether to accept or reject changes the House of Lords had made to the bill. Position: Oppose the government's handling of these Lords amendments, likely preferring to accept the Lords' original changes to the bill Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 20 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 77 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment requiring a review of the cost and long-term sustainability of public sector pension schemes. The Lords wanted transparency about the growing financial liabilities of public sector pensions, which are largely funded from current taxation rather than investment funds. Position: Support the Lords amendment requiring a review of public sector pension scheme costs and long-term sustainability, arguing greater transparency is needed about taxpayer liabilities PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 15 The Lords had amended the Pension Schemes Bill to remove or restrict a government power to direct how pension funds must invest ('mandation power'). The Commons voted on whether to reject that Lords amendment and reinstate the government's original approach, which critics called an unjustified government 'power grab' over pension investments. Position: Support the government rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the power for the government to direct pension fund investments despite concerns it overrides trustees' duties to members PensionsPensions and Retirementleftwith govt | Yes | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill that would have blocked ministers from being able to direct how pension funds invest savers' money. The Lords had passed the amendment to remove or limit this 'mandation power', which critics called an unacceptable government power grab over people's private savings. Position: Support the government rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping ministers' power to direct pension fund investments in the Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementleftwith govt | Yes | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 35 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Pension Schemes Bill — a Bill aimed at improving pension returns for savers through consolidation and better asset management. The government wanted to remove Lords Amendment 35, while the Lords had sought to modify the Bill in some way not fully detailed in the available debate excerpts. Position: Support retaining the Lords' Amendment 35, backing the change the upper chamber made to the Pension Schemes Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementcentreagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 26 The Lords had amended the Pension Schemes Bill to protect smaller, well-run pension schemes from being forced to merge into larger ones, arguing that good performance matters more than sheer size. This vote was on whether to reject that Lords amendment, meaning the government wanted to keep the original 'scale requirement' without exemptions for smaller schemes. Position: Support the Lords amendment, protecting well-performing smaller pension schemes from forced mergers and preserving competition and innovation in the pensions sector PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion relating to Lords Amendment 38 MPs voted on whether to accept or reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific content of Lords Amendment 38 cannot be determined, but the vote decided whether the Commons would override the Lords' modification to this legislation covering children's welfare and schools. Position: Support retaining Lords Amendment 38, backing the change made by the House of Lords to the Bill Child WellbeingEducationSchoolsrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 43 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Pension Schemes Bill — a Bill aimed at improving returns for pension savers. The government (Labour) wanted to overturn Lords Amendment 43, restoring its preferred version of the legislation. Position: Support keeping Lords Amendment 43, backing the change the House of Lords made to the Pension Schemes Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 78 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Pension Schemes Bill. The Lords had added Amendment 78, which the government opposed; voting Aye supported overturning the Lords' change, while voting No meant keeping it in the Bill. Position: Support the government's rejection of Lords Amendment 78 to the Pension Schemes Bill, restoring the Bill to its pre-Lords form on this point PensionsPensions and Retirementproceduralwith govt | Yes | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pensions Scheme Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 The Commons voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Pensions Scheme Bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific content of Lords Amendment 5 cannot be determined, but the government (Labour) sought to overturn it and restore its original position. Position: Support retaining the Lords' amendment to the Pensions Scheme Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementproceduralagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 333 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (no. 333, tabled by Baroness Buscombe) to the Crime and Policing Bill, which the government opposed. Critics argued the Lords change represented a major shift in the relationship between the state and individuals and had not received adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Position: Support the government's decision to reject Lords Amendment 333, siding with ministers who argued the change was unworkable or inappropriate Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (Amendment 6) to the Crime and Policing Bill that would have strengthened powers to tackle fly-tipping. The government opposed the Lords change, meaning communities — particularly rural ones — would not get the enhanced enforcement tools the Lords had proposed. Position: Support the Lords' amendment to introduce tougher measures against fly-tipping, arguing rural communities and landowners need stronger legal protections and enforcement powers Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 311 The Commons voted on whether to reject Lords Amendment 311 to the Crime and Policing Bill, with the government opposing this Lords change (which critics said was added late without adequate scrutiny) and offering its own alternative approach instead, in the context of wider debates about violence against women and girls and online harms. Position: Support the government's rejection of the Lords' amendment 311, backing the government's preferred alternative approach to the underlying issue in the Crime and Policing Bill Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 334 The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have completely abolished non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). The government argued the Lords amendment was unnecessary because it had already moved to scrap the existing NCHI code of practice and accepted a College of Policing review recommending a tougher new national standard instead. Position: Support the government's approach of replacing the existing NCHI code of practice with a stricter national standard, rather than an outright statutory abolition of NCHIs Crime and PolicingPolicingcentrewith govt | Yes | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 11 MPs voted on whether to reject Lords Amendment 11 to the Crime and Policing Bill. The Government moved to disagree with this Lords change, meaning the Commons would override what the unelected House of Lords had added to the Bill. Position: Support keeping Lords Amendment 11, backing the Lords' addition to the Crime and Policing Bill against the Government's wishes Crime and PolicingPolicingproceduralagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 357 The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have removed a legal safeguard protecting legitimate political and historical discussion about terrorism from prosecution. The Lords wanted to make it easier to prosecute glorification of terrorist acts by proscribed organisations, but the government argued this risked criminalising genuine political and social debate. Position: Support the Lords amendment, arguing that glorifying acts of terrorism by proscribed organisations should not benefit from the historical safeguard, and that the current law is too permissive Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 342 The government rejected a Lords amendment that would have required specific evidence to be presented to a court when applying for a youth diversion order (used in terrorism and serious harm cases), arguing it would create unhelpful rigidity. Instead, the government proposed its own alternative amendment requiring statutory guidance to set out what evidence courts should consider. Position: Support the Lords' position that specific evidence requirements should be enshrined in statute to ensure courts only impose youth diversion orders where truly necessary and proportionate Crime and PolicingPolicingcentreagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2 The government asked MPs to reject a Lords amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill (the largest criminal justice bill in a generation), instead offering its own alternative measures. The bill covers knife crime, violence against women and girls, antisocial behaviour, and online harms including AI-generated intimate images. Position: Support retaining the Lords amendment as passed, disagreeing with the government's proposed substitution Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice SystemPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 359 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have proscribed Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. The Conservative opposition argued the IRGC poses a direct threat to people in the UK and that proscription was overdue, while the government maintained it preferred existing measures such as the foreign influence registration scheme. Position: Support the Lords amendment to proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, arguing it poses a direct and serious threat to people in the UK and that current measures are insufficient Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to agree with all remaining Lords Amendments MPs voted on whether to accept the remaining Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, a wide-ranging policing and criminal justice bill. This was a package vote covering multiple Lords changes, some of which the government accepted, others it rejected and replaced with alternative provisions, including on civil liberties issues such as freedom of expression and religion. Position: Oppose the package, potentially concerned that certain Lords amendments engaging civil liberties — such as those relating to freedom of thought, religion, and expression — were not being given proper parliamentary scrutiny before being accepted or rejected Crime and PolicingPolicingcentreagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have expanded victims' rights, including broader access to free court transcripts and stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences. The government argued it already plans to deliver free sentencing remarks for victims and wants to ensure any further changes are workable before committing to them. Position: Support the Lords amendment, backing stronger victims' rights now including wider access to free court transcripts and enhanced ability to challenge unduly lenient sentences Crime & Policingcentreagainst govt | No | 25 Mar 2026 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have given victims stronger rights to access court transcripts and challenge unduly lenient sentences. The Lords wanted greater transparency in the criminal justice system for victims, but the government argued it was prioritising free sentencing remarks first and would consider further steps later. Position: Support the Lords amendment, backing greater transparency in the criminal justice system and stronger rights for victims to access court transcripts and challenge lenient sentences Crime & Policingcentreagainst govt | No | 25 Mar 2026 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 4 The government voted to overturn a Lords amendment related to the financing of private prosecutions. The Lords had added rules about how private prosecutions are funded, but the government sought to remove this change from the Victims and Courts Bill. Position: Support the government's decision to remove the Lords amendment on private prosecution financing, keeping the Bill as the government intended Crime & Policingproceduralwith govt | Yes | 25 Mar 2026 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 The Commons voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment that would have given victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences and made the criminal justice system more transparent. The government argued the amendment had drafting flaws that could create legal uncertainty and a flood of unmeritorious appeals, while opposition MPs accused the government of stripping victims of important rights. Position: Support keeping the Lords amendment to give victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences and improve transparency in the criminal justice system Crime & Policingproceduralagainst govt | No | 25 Mar 2026 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2 The government moved to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have expanded victims' rights — including broader access to free court transcripts and stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences. The government argued it supports these goals in principle but wants to implement them differently, while opposition parties said the Lords amendments were sensible and should be kept. Position: Oppose removing the Lords amendment, arguing it should be kept to guarantee victims stronger rights to free court transcripts and to challenge unduly lenient sentences now, rather than relying on future government promises Crime & Policingproceduralagainst govt | No | 25 Mar 2026 |
