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 |
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 |
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: Support the government's version of the legislation (Amendment 38J) and reject the Lords' alternative changes (38V–38X) Constitution and Democracycross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 22 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Government motion in relation to LA439 MPs voted on a government motion relating to amendment LA439 to the Crime and Policing Bill. Without debate excerpts, the precise content of the amendment is unknown, but this was a government-backed procedural or substantive motion concerning a specific provision in the Bill. Position: Support the government's position on amendment LA439 to the Crime and Policing Bill Crime and PolicingCriminal JusticePolicingcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 22 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 13 The government asked MPs to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to say exactly what Lords Amendment 13 proposed, but MPs were deciding whether to override the Lords and restore the government's original text on this aspect of English devolution. Position: Support the government's position by rejecting the Lords' amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 4 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific content of Lords Amendment 4 is unknown, but the government sought to overturn it, meaning the Lords' modification to this devolution legislation will not stand if the Aye side prevails. Position: Support the government's position by rejecting Lords Amendment 4 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, restoring the Bill to its pre-Lords form on this point Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 41 The Commons voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific content of Lords Amendment 41 is unknown, but voting Aye meant siding with the Labour government in overturning the Lords' change. Position: Support the government's position by rejecting Lords Amendment 41 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Governmentcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 36 The government asked MPs to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to specify what Lords Amendment 36 proposed, but voting Aye meant siding with the government in overturning that Lords change. Position: Support the government's position by rejecting the Lords' amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 26 The government asked MPs to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to say what Lords Amendment 26 specifically proposed, but MPs voted on whether to override the Lords and remove that change from the Bill. Position: Support the government's decision to reject Lords Amendment 26, restoring the Bill to its pre-amendment form on this particular provision Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 2 The government asked MPs to overturn a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts, the precise content of Lords Amendment 2 is unknown, but MPs voted on whether to reject the Lords' modification and restore the government's original text. Position: Support the government's position by rejecting the Lords' amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 37 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to specify what Lords Amendment 37 proposed, but the government sought to remove it, and a majority of MPs backed the government's position. Position: Support the government's decision to reject Lords Amendment 37 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Governmentcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 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 the government's position of rejecting the specific Lords amendment while accepting the government's own alternative provisions in its place Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice SystemPolicingcross-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 government rejecting the Lords' fly-tipping amendment, trusting the government's alternative approach (or lack thereof) to tackling illegal waste dumping 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 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 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 the Government's decision to reject Lords Amendment 11, removing a change the Lords made to the Crime and Policing Bill Crime and PolicingPolicingproceduralwith govt | Yes | 14 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 |
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 government's position of rejecting the Lords amendment, preferring a more gradual approach to expanding victims' access to court transcripts rather than legislating for broader rights now Crime & Policingcentrewith govt | Yes | 25 Mar 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 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 Crime & Policingcentrewith govt | Yes | 25 Mar 2026 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have created a new statutory duty on the government to notify victims and help them apply to compensation schemes out of time. The government argued the duty was duplicative and confusing, preferring to develop their own approach; the opposition said the Lords change would strengthen victims' rights. Position: 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 Crime & Policingcentrewith govt | Yes | 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 rejecting the Lords amendment on the basis that its drafting is legally flawed and would create uncertainty for victims, offenders and courts — while claiming to accept the underlying intention Crime & Policingproceduralwith govt | Yes | 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: Support the government's decision to remove the Lords amendment, accepting ministers' assurances they will deliver expanded victims' rights through other means at a later stage Crime & Policingproceduralwith govt | Yes | 25 Mar 2026 |
Opposition Day Motion: Defence The opposition brought forward a motion on defence policy for debate and a vote. Opposition Day motions allow the opposition to set the agenda and challenge the government's approach — in this case on defence, likely concerning spending commitments or military capability. Position: Reject the opposition's motion, backing the government's existing defence policy and spending plans Defence and Foreign AffairsDefence Spendingcross-cuttingwith govt | No | 24 Mar 2026 |
Opposition Day Motion: Oil and Gas Parliament voted on an opposition-proposed motion about oil and gas policy. Opposition Day motions are brought by parties not in government, and this vote signals a political divide over the future of North Sea oil and gas extraction under the Labour government. Position: Reject the opposition motion, backing the Labour government's approach of limiting new oil and gas licences as part of its clean energy transition EnergyEnvironmentleftwith govt | No | 24 Mar 2026 |
Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 Vote on regulations giving the new Fair Work Agency (created by the Employment Rights Act 2025) the same investigatory powers previously held by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, including surveillance tools. Conservatives argued these state-level surveillance powers were disproportionate for a labour enforcement body; the Lib Dems backed the government. Position: Support transferring investigatory and surveillance powers to the Fair Work Agency as a necessary consequence of merging labour enforcement functions into the new body Constitution and DemocracyEmploymentleftwith govt | Yes | 18 Mar 2026 |
Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Vote on regulations to raise university tuition fees in England by 2.71% for 2026-27. The Labour government backed the increase, while opposition MPs (Conservatives) criticised it as an added burden on young people, despite their own party having nearly tripled fees in 2012. Position: Support raising university tuition fees by 2.71% for 2026-27, arguing it is necessary to sustain higher education funding EducationHigher Educationcentrewith govt | Yes | 18 Mar 2026 |
Opposition day motion: fuel duty The opposition brought forward a motion calling for action on fuel duty, likely opposing a planned increase or calling for a freeze or cut. This matters because fuel duty directly affects the cost of driving for households and businesses across the UK. Position: Oppose the opposition's motion, backing the government's existing approach to fuel duty — likely defending a planned increase or rejecting the opposition's proposed policy TaxationTransportleftwith govt | No | 18 Mar 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 5 A Conservative amendment to the Finance Bill concerning income tax thresholds. The Conservatives argued that Labour's approach of higher taxes, spending and borrowing is harming families and businesses, while Labour MPs defended their fiscal decisions as necessary to restore public finances and invest in public services. Position: Reject the Conservative amendment, backing the government's existing income tax threshold policy as part of restoring fiscal order EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 11 Mar 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: New Clause 11 Vote on a Liberal Democrat amendment requiring the government to index the thresholds for the inheritance tax relief on agricultural land to inflation and rising land values, rather than keeping them fixed. Lib Dem and other MPs argued that static thresholds would erode the relief over time and hurt family farmers. Position: Oppose mandatory indexation of agricultural inheritance tax thresholds, preferring to keep fixed thresholds as set in the legislation EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 11 Mar 2026 |
