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 |
Opposition day motion: student loans An opposition party brought forward a motion calling for changes to the student loans system, likely addressing issues such as repayment terms, interest rates, or debt levels. Opposition day motions are symbolic but signal where parties stand on an issue; the government voted it down. Position: Oppose the opposition's proposed changes to student loans, either defending the current system or rejecting the specific framing of the motion EducationHigher Educationrightwith govt | No | 18 Mar 2026 |
Courts and Tribunals Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading MPs voted on a Conservative reasoned amendment opposing the Courts and Tribunals Bill at Second Reading. The Bill, introduced by David Lammy, aims to modernise the criminal justice system, but the opposition attempted to block its progress, with concerns raised about the impact on jury trials and the effect on black and minority ethnic defendants. Position: Support allowing the Courts and Tribunals Bill to proceed, backing government reforms to modernise courts and tribunals while retaining jury trials as a cornerstone of justice Constitution and Democracyleftwith govt | No | 10 Mar 2026 |
Courts and Tribunals Bill: Second Reading MPs voted on whether to give initial approval to a Courts and Tribunals Bill, which proposes modernising the criminal justice system. Debate focused on whether reforms — including potential changes to when juries are used — are necessary to clear court backlogs, while critics raised concerns about protecting jury trial rights and disproportionate impacts on minority ethnic defendants. Position: Support modernising the courts and criminal justice system, including reforms to jury thresholds, to make it fit for the 21st century Constitution and Democracycentrewith govt | Yes | 10 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 17 The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment (Amendment 17) to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Based on the debate, Lords Amendment 17 related to sibling relationships for looked-after children, but the government argued it would do little to advance that cause, preferring instead to address the issue through broader children's social care reforms. Position: Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment on sibling relationships for looked-after children, trusting that wider social care reforms will better address the issue EducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 16 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have required a review of funding levels for the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund, which provides financial help for adoptive and special guardian families. The government argued it had already committed £55 million for 2026-27 and confirmed the fund's continuation, making a formal review unnecessary. Position: Support the government's rejection of a mandatory funding review for the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund, trusting existing ministerial commitments are sufficient EducationSchoolscentrewith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 44 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (44) that would have required parental consent before families could be referred to or kept on a child protection support programme. The government argued this requirement would deter vulnerable families from seeking help; opponents, citing cases like Sara Sharif, argued the Lords change would have better protected children at risk. Position: Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, keeping the existing approach where families can be referred to support programmes without a new consent requirement EducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 38 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have banned children under 16 from accessing social media. The Lords had added this measure to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but the government disagreed with it, proposing instead to deal with online harms through alternative means. Position: Support the government's position of rejecting the Lords' proposed under-16 social media ban, preferring alternative regulatory approaches rather than an outright ban EducationSchoolscentrewith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37 The Commons voted to reject the Lords' version of an amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill relating to child poverty and free school meals entitlements, replacing it with the government's own alternative amendments. The Lords amendment engaged financial privilege, meaning it had spending implications; the government preferred its own wording expanding free school meals to children in universal credit households. Position: Support the government's approach of substituting its own amendments in lieu of the Lords' version, backing the government's specific free school meals expansion plan EducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 41 The Commons voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment that would have introduced a price cap on branded school uniform items, replacing the government's preferred approach of capping the number of compulsory branded items schools can require. The Lords amendment was backed by opposition MPs who argued a cost cap is a more effective way to reduce uniform costs for parents. Position: Support rejecting the Lords' price cap on school uniforms, preferring the government's existing approach of limiting the number of compulsory branded uniform items EducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 102 The Lords had amended the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill to prevent the government from reducing pupil admission numbers at oversubscribed good and outstanding schools. The Commons voted to reject this Lords amendment, meaning the government retains the power to limit how many pupils these schools can take, overriding the Lords' attempt to protect parental choice and high-performing schools. Position: Support the government's power to reduce pupil admission numbers at oversubscribed good and outstanding schools, rejecting the Lords' protection of parental choice EducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 9 Mar 2026 |
Representation of the People Bill: Reasoned Amendment A vote on a 'reasoned amendment' to block the Representation of the People Bill from proceeding to its next stage. The Bill, introduced by the Labour government, includes measures such as extending voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds — a Labour manifesto commitment. A reasoned amendment is an opposition attempt to reject the Bill at Second Reading by citing objections to its principles. Position: Support allowing the Bill to proceed, backing Labour's electoral reforms including extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds Constitution and DemocracyElectoral Reformleftwith govt | No | 2 Mar 2026 |
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 Vote on whether to extend the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to cover maritime shipping activities, requiring ships to purchase carbon allowances for their emissions. The opposition raised concerns about the cost impact on ferry services to UK islands, though Scottish islands were exempted. Position: Support extending carbon pricing to the maritime sector as part of the UK's net zero agenda, accepting that higher costs for shipping and ferries are a necessary part of decarbonising transport Climate ChangeEnvironmentleftwith govt | Yes | 11 Feb 2026 |
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 Vote on a statutory instrument that amends the UK Emissions Trading Scheme from 2027, reducing the supply of free carbon allowances given to businesses — effectively increasing the carbon price they face. The opposition argued this would raise energy bills for households and businesses, while the government backed it as part of meeting climate targets. Position: Support reducing free carbon allowances in the UK ETS, accepting higher carbon costs as necessary to meet climate commitments Climate ChangeEnvironmentleftwith govt | Yes | 4 Feb 2026 |
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill: Second Reading MPs voted on whether to pass a bill removing the two-child limit on Universal Credit, which currently restricts child welfare payments to the first two children in a family. The government argued the policy traps children in poverty and has failed to achieve its stated aims, while opponents defended it as encouraging personal responsibility. Position: Support removing the two-child limit on Universal Credit, allowing families to receive welfare support for all their children and reducing child poverty Universal CreditWelfare and Benefitsleftwith govt | Yes | 3 Feb 2026 |
Opposition Day: Youth unemployment An opposition party brought a motion on youth unemployment for debate in the House of Commons, likely calling on the government to take stronger action to tackle joblessness among young people. Opposition Day motions are typically symbolic but signal political priorities. Position: Reject the opposition motion, defending the government's existing approach to youth employment and skills EmploymentSkills and Trainingcross-cuttingwith govt | No | 28 Jan 2026 |
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 2 Vote on a Conservative-backed amendment (Amendment 2) to the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill that would reintroduce merit-based selection — rewarding academic achievement and exam performance — into the NHS medical specialty training allocation system, which currently allocates places without considering candidates' grades or merit. Position: Oppose reintroducing merit-based allocation to specialty training, preferring the current system which does not rank candidates by academic achievement HealthSkills and Trainingleftwith govt | No | 27 Jan 2026 |
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 1 A vote on an opposition amendment to the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill, which sought to give priority to British citizens in UK foundation and specialty training programmes from 2027. The government defeated the amendment, preferring its own approach to managing medical training places. Position: Oppose this amendment, preferring the government's existing framework for prioritising UK medical graduates without a citizenship-based criterion HealthSkills and Trainingleftwith govt | No | 27 Jan 2026 |
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 9 Vote on whether to amend the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill to give priority in NHS specialty training to British citizens, regardless of where they trained. Supporters argued this would help British students who trained abroad (e.g. in Cyprus or Grenada) return to practise in the UK, while opponents argued it could be counterproductive as NHS experience matters more than citizenship. Position: Oppose using citizenship as the primary criterion for training priority, preferring to prioritise those with UK medical qualifications and NHS experience regardless of nationality HealthSkills and Trainingleftwith govt | No | 27 Jan 2026 |
The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 MPs voted on a Remedial Order to amend the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which had been found incompatible with human rights law. The order was designed to address legal concerns about the controversial immunity scheme for Troubles-era offences following court rulings that parts of the original Act breached the European Convention on Human Rights. Position: Support passing the Remedial Order to bring the Troubles Legacy Act into compliance with human rights law, maintaining a reformed framework for dealing with the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles Constitution and DemocracyCrime & Policingcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 21 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Clause 86 stand part Vote on whether Clause 86 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill should remain part of the Bill, as part of the government's annual Finance Bill setting out tax arrangements for the coming year. The debate excerpts reference income tax charges for 2026-27 and pension-related tax provisions, suggesting this clause relates to the government's tax framework. Position: Support the clause remaining in the Finance Bill, backing the government's proposed tax provisions for 2026-27 EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 13 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 9 MPs voted on a Conservative-proposed new clause calling for a review of the impact of freezing income tax thresholds and other tax allowances on taxpayers, particularly those on lower incomes. The government defended its decision to extend the income tax threshold freeze as a revenue-raising measure while rejecting the need for additional formal review requirements. Position: Oppose the review requirement, arguing the government has already published sufficient impact assessments and that the Opposition's criticism is hypocritical given they also froze thresholds when in power EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 13 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 26 A vote on New Clause 26 proposed during the Committee stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, a government budget legislation measure. Without debate excerpts, the precise content of the clause is unknown, but it was rejected by the government-backed majority. Position: Oppose New Clause 26, backing the government's Finance Bill as drafted without this additional provision EconomyTaxationcross-cuttingwith govt | No | 13 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No.2) Bill Committee: Clause 10 stand part Vote on whether Clause 10 of the Finance (No.2) Bill should remain part of the legislation. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to confirm the clause's exact content, but as a government Finance Bill clause it likely implements a specific tax or fiscal measure from the Budget, and this was a standard committee-stage vote to approve or reject that provision. Position: Support Clause 10 remaining in the Finance Bill, backing the government's proposed tax or fiscal measure EconomyTaxationcentrewith govt | Yes | 12 Jan 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 12 Vote on a Conservative-proposed new clause requiring the government to review and report on how income tax increases on property income (landlords) might affect rent prices. The opposition wanted transparency on whether landlord tax rises would be passed on to tenants. Position: Oppose the review requirement, backing the government's tax changes on property income without mandating an impact assessment on rents EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 12 Jan 2026 |
Opposition Day: Rural communities A Conservative Opposition Day debate motion on rural communities, likely calling on the government to do more to support rural areas. The government voted it down, as is standard practice with opposition motions. Position: Reject the opposition motion, defending the government's existing approach to rural communities and services Agriculture and Rural AffairsRural Servicesleftwith govt | No | 7 Jan 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: Second Reading Vote on whether to pass a bill that would allow the government to apply National Insurance contributions to salary sacrifice pension contributions above £2,000 per year, coming into force from April 2029. This closes a tax relief loophole that currently benefits higher earners who arrange part of their pay as pension contributions to avoid NICs. Position: Support applying National Insurance to employer pension salary sacrifice arrangements above £2,000 annually from 2029, closing a tax relief that disproportionately benefits higher earners PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 17 Dec 2025 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill: Second Reading MPs voted on whether to approve the Finance (No. 2) Bill at Second Reading, which implements Labour's November 2025 Budget. The Budget includes measures described by the government as building 'strong foundations' while avoiding austerity, though critics raised concerns including the impact of inheritance tax changes on family farms. Position: Support the Finance Bill implementing Labour's Budget, including its tax and spending choices aimed at avoiding austerity and maintaining public services EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 16 Dec 2025 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading (Opposition) MPs voted on an opposition amendment to reject the Finance Bill implementing Labour's Autumn 2025 Budget, with Conservative MPs arguing the Budget's tax changes — including inheritance tax reforms affecting family farms — would harm the private sector and rural communities. Position: Support the Finance Bill and Labour's Budget choices, arguing they build strong economic foundations, avoid austerity, and protect public services without cutting capital spending EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 16 Dec 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to disagree with the Lords in their Amendment 120N to Commons Amendment 120G and their Amendments 120P to 120S to Commons Amendment 120H The government voted to reject Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill that sought to impose consultation, impact assessment, and parliamentary scrutiny requirements on a new late-stage provision (reportedly a £118,000 cap on employment tribunal awards or similar). The Lords had tried to add procedural safeguards arguing the measure was inserted without proper process; the government wanted to proceed without those constraints. Position: Support the government overriding the Lords' procedural safeguards and pressing ahead with the Employment Rights Bill without additional consultation or impact assessment requirements on the disputed provision EconomyEmploymentleftwith govt | Yes | 15 Dec 2025 |
