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 |
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill: Third Reading MPs voted on the final passage of a Bill to abolish the two-child limit on Universal Credit, which currently restricts child elements of the benefit to the first two children in a family. Removing this limit aims to reduce child poverty by ensuring all children in low-income families receive equal support. Position: Support removing the two-child benefit cap so that all children in low-income families receive equal Universal Credit entitlements, reducing child poverty Universal CreditWelfare and Benefitsleftwith govt | Yes | 23 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: British Indian Ocean Territory An Opposition Day debate motion on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), likely relating to the controversial deal under which the UK agreed to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. This vote reflects the opposition's challenge to the government's handling of this strategic territory. Position: Reject the opposition motion, backing the Labour government's negotiated position on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos Islands deal Defence and Foreign Affairsleftwith govt | No | 28 Jan 2026 |
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment to the Diego Garcia/British Indian Ocean Territory Bill. Lords Amendment 1 would have added conditions around notifying Mauritius about military activities on the base, which critics argued would compromise operational security and undermine British sovereignty over the territory. Position: Support rejecting the Lords amendment, backing the government's deal with Mauritius as negotiated without additional notification requirements that could constrain military operations at Diego Garcia Defence and Foreign AffairsMiddle Eastcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 Jan 2026 |
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Diego Garcia Military Base Bill. The Lords had added Amendment 6 to place additional conditions or constraints on the deal; the government asked the Commons to overturn it in order to proceed with the agreement as negotiated. Position: Support the government's position to remove the Lords' additional condition from the Bill, backing the deal as negotiated without further parliamentary constraints imposed by the Lords Defence and Foreign AffairsMiddle Eastcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 Jan 2026 |
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment that would have required the government to publish the full inflation-adjusted costs of payments to Mauritius under the Diego Garcia treaty, including the methodology used to calculate them. The government argued the financial details were already publicly available; the opposition said the government had never been transparent about the true costs to British taxpayers. Position: Support rejecting the Lords amendment, trusting that existing published financial information is sufficient and no additional transparency requirement is needed Defence and Foreign AffairsMiddle Eastcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 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 25 Vote on a Conservative amendment requiring the government to publish assessments of the impact of nearly doubling remote gaming duty (from 21% to 40%) and raising general betting duty to 25%. Opponents warned these increases could damage a competitive industry supporting tens of thousands of jobs and key sports like horseracing. Position: Oppose the review requirement, backing the government's decision to significantly raise gambling duties as planned without a mandated separate impact assessment EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 13 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 |
Railways Bill: Second Reading MPs voted on whether to pass the Railways Bill at its Second Reading, which would bring private train operating companies into public ownership and create a new publicly-run national rail operator. The government argued nationalisation would end decades of dysfunction and fragmentation on the railways. Position: Support nationalising rail services under public ownership to improve reliability and coordination of the railway network RailTransportleftwith govt | Yes | 9 Dec 2025 |
UK-EU customs union (duty to negotiate): Ten Minute Rule Motion A vote on whether to allow a bill to be introduced that would require the government to negotiate a UK-EU customs union. The vote was tied 100-100 and the Speaker used her casting vote in favour, following parliamentary convention to allow further debate. Position: Support allowing Parliament to debate legislation requiring the government to pursue a UK-EU customs union, arguing Brexit has damaged trade and the economy EU RelationsTrade and Brexitcross-cutting | Yes | 9 Dec 2025 |
Railways Bill: Opposition Reasoned Amendment MPs voted on a reasoned amendment to block the Railways Bill from proceeding to its next stage. The Bill proposes bringing train operating companies into public ownership, with the government arguing nationalisation will improve reliability and end decades of dysfunction, while opponents raised concerns about whether public ownership actually delivers better services. Position: Support the Railways Bill proceeding, backing the government's plan to bring railways into public ownership to improve reliability and performance RailTransportleftwith govt | No | 9 Dec 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to insist on disagreement to LA62 but not to insist on Commons Amendment 62C and to propose Gov (a) in lieu of LA62 MPs voted on the government's position regarding Lords Amendment 62 to the Employment Rights Bill, which relates to protections against unfair dismissal. The government proposed its own alternative amendment in lieu of the Lords' version, seeking to bring in unfair dismissal protections from 1 January 2027 for employees already having six months' service, rather than waiting the full qualifying period. Position: Support the government's compromise approach to unfair dismissal protections, bringing forward protections earlier for workers with existing service, while rejecting the Lords' specific amendment in favour of the government's own wording EconomyEmploymentleftwith govt | Yes | 8 Dec 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to insist on disagreement to LA23 and LA106 to LA120, not to insist on Commons Amendment 120C, 120D and 120E but to propose Gov (a) to (f) in lieu of LA23 and LA106 to LA120 The House voted to reject Lords amendments that would have altered provisions on guaranteed hours and related worker protections in the Employment Rights Bill, instead substituting the Government's own alternative amendments. This is part of ongoing 'ping-pong' between the Commons and Lords over key elements of the Bill, with the Government seeking to pass its version of new employment rights rather than the Lords' preferred changes. Position: Support the Labour Government's version of the Employment Rights Bill, overriding Lords changes to provisions on guaranteed hours and related protections for workers EconomyEmploymentleftwith govt | Yes | 8 Dec 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to insist on disagreement to Lords Amendment 48B but to propose Government amendment (a) and (b) in lieu of LA48B MPs voted to reject a Lords amendment (48B) to the Employment Rights Bill and replace it with a government compromise on zero-hours contracts and unfair dismissal protections, including bringing forward unfair dismissal protections to 1 January 2027 for workers with six months' service, rather than accepting the Lords' version. Position: Support the government's amended approach to zero-hours contracts and unfair dismissal protections, including earlier commencement of protections and seasonal work provisions, in place of the Lords' amendment EconomyEmploymentleftwith govt | Yes | 8 Dec 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to insist on disagreement to Lords Amendment 1B but to propose Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords Amendment 1B The Lords had amended the Employment Rights Bill to shift the 'right to guaranteed hours' so that workers would have to request guaranteed hours from their employer, rather than employers being required to proactively offer them. The government rejected this Lords change and proposed its own alternative amendments, keeping the duty on employers to offer guaranteed hours to eligible workers. Position: Support keeping the employer duty to proactively offer guaranteed hours to workers, rejecting the Lords' weaker version that would have required workers to request them EconomyEmploymentleftwith govt | Yes | 8 Dec 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: Government motion not to insist on Commons Amendment 72C but to disagree with LA72D to LA72H and to propose Gov (a) and (b) in lieu of LA72D to LA72H A Lords-Commons ping-pong vote on the Employment Rights Bill, where the government proposed its own compromise amendments (a) and (b) in place of Lords amendments 72D–72H, which the Commons had previously rejected. This is part of the ongoing negotiation between the two Houses over the final shape of the Bill's employment provisions. Position: Support the government's compromise wording on the disputed employment rights provisions, rejecting the Lords' alternative amendments 72D–72H in favour of the government's own substitute text EconomyEmploymentleftwith govt | Yes | 8 Dec 2025 |
Budget Resolution No. 4: Income tax (dividend rates) Vote on a Budget Resolution setting the rates of income tax applied to dividend income (money paid to shareholders). Budget Resolutions are the formal parliamentary approvals needed to implement measures announced in the Budget. Position: Support the government's proposed dividend tax rates as part of the 2025 Budget package EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 2 Dec 2025 |
Budget Resolution No. 64: Rates of alcohol duty Vote on the government's proposed changes to alcohol duty rates as part of the 2025 Budget. This matters because it determines how much tax is paid on beer, wine, spirits and other alcoholic drinks, affecting both consumers and the hospitality and drinks industries. Position: Support the government's proposed alcohol duty rates as set out in the Budget, accepting the planned increases or changes to how different alcoholic drinks are taxed. EconomyTaxationcentrewith govt | Yes | 2 Dec 2025 |
Budget Resolution No. 5: Income tax (savings rate for future years) Vote on a Budget Resolution setting the income tax savings rate for future years, which determines how interest and savings income is taxed for people on lower incomes. This is part of the formal parliamentary process to implement Budget measures into law. Position: Support approving the government's proposed savings income tax rate as set out in the Budget EconomyTaxationcentrewith govt | Yes | 2 Dec 2025 |
Budget Resolution No. 28: Capital gains tax (employee-ownership trusts) Vote on a Budget Resolution setting out the rules for capital gains tax treatment of Employee Ownership Trusts (EOTs), which allow businesses to be sold to trusts held on behalf of employees with potential tax reliefs. This resolution forms part of the legal framework needed to implement the government's Budget tax measures. Position: Support the government's proposed capital gains tax rules for Employee Ownership Trusts as set out in the Budget EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 2 Dec 2025 |
Budget Resolution No. 51: Inheritance tax (pension interests) Vote on a Budget resolution to include pension interests within the scope of inheritance tax, meaning that unused pension pots could be counted as part of a person's estate for inheritance tax purposes. This is a significant change to how pensions are taxed on death. Position: Support bringing pension funds into the inheritance tax regime, closing a tax-planning loophole that allowed wealthy individuals to pass on pension wealth free of inheritance tax EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 2 Dec 2025 |
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill — the only remaining point of disagreement between the two Houses. The government argued the amendment was unnecessary given their new asylum policy statement, while supporters of the Lords change wanted it retained as a safeguard. Position: Support the government rejecting the Lords amendment, trusting the government's asylum policy statement as sufficient without the additional legislative requirement AsylumBorder ControlImmigrationcross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 19 Nov 2025 |
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Second Reading MPs voted on whether to give a second reading (proceed with) a new government Bill on addressing the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, which would replace the previous government's controversial immunity framework with a new approach to legacy investigations and acknowledgement for victims' families. Position: Support the new Labour government's approach to dealing with the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles, allowing the Bill to proceed to further scrutiny in Parliament Constitution and DemocracyDevolutioncross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 18 Nov 2025 |
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Opposition Reasoned Amendment MPs voted on whether to block the second reading of the government's new Northern Ireland Troubles legacy bill, which aims to address how killings and atrocities from the Troubles (1966–1998) are investigated and dealt with. The opposition reasoned amendment was an attempt to prevent the bill progressing, reflecting concerns about its scope and whether it adequately covers victims like those of the Omagh bombing. Position: Support allowing the bill to proceed to further parliamentary scrutiny, backing the government's new approach to dealing with the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland Constitution and DemocracyDevolutioncross-cuttingwith govt | No | 18 Nov 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: motion relating to Lords Reason 72B The Commons voted to reject several Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, including on unfair dismissal protections for young workers, and to substitute the government's own alternative proposals. This was part of the parliamentary back-and-forth (ping-pong) between the Commons and Lords on the Bill's employment protections. Position: Support the Labour government's version of employment rights reforms, overriding Lords changes and maintaining stronger protections for workers including young people against unfair dismissal Employmentleftwith govt | Yes | 5 Nov 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 48B MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (48B) to the Employment Rights Bill that would have created a separate, weaker framework of employment protections for seasonal workers. The debate centred on concerns that without a clear legal definition of 'seasonal work', employers could exploit the exemption to deny workers their full rights. Position: Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, maintaining consistent unfair dismissal and employment rights protections regardless of whether a worker is classified as seasonal Employmentleftwith govt | Yes | 5 Nov 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: motion relating to Lords Reason 120B MPs voted on whether to override several Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, including provisions around unfair dismissal protections for young workers. The government was pushing back against Lords changes and proposing its own alternative amendments, particularly around employment protections it argues are fairer for working people. Position: Support the government's version of the Employment Rights Bill, overriding Lords amendments and maintaining stronger employment protections including fairer unfair dismissal rules for young workers Employmentleftwith govt | Yes | 5 Nov 2025 |
Employment Rights Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1B MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (1B) to the Employment Rights Bill relating to the right to guaranteed hours for workers. The government wanted to push back on Lords changes and proceed with its own version of the Bill, which includes stronger employment protections such as rights to guaranteed hours and reforms to probationary periods for new employees. Position: Support the government's position on guaranteed hours and employment rights provisions, rejecting the Lords' alternative version and backing Labour's Employment Rights Bill as amended by the Commons Employmentleftwith govt | Yes | 5 Nov 2025 |
