Privilege Vote on whether to refer Prime Minister Keir Starmer to the Privileges Committee over allegations that he misled Parliament about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador, specifically whether proper security vetting procedures were followed. The opposition, backed by several smaller parties, argued Starmer's repeated assurances to the House were contradicted by evidence that emerged from leaked documents. Position: Support referring the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee to investigate whether he misled Parliament over the Mandelson appointment, arguing accountability requires independent scrutiny of potentially false statements to the House Constitution and DemocracyParliamentary Accountabilitycross-cuttingagainst govt | Yes | 28 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88C, 88E to 88P, 88R, 88S and 88W, and propose Amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendments 88A, 88T, 88U and 88V MPs voted on whether to override repeated Lords attempts to remove a government 'reserve power' from the Pension Schemes Bill — a power that would allow ministers to direct pension funds to invest in certain asset classes (such as private markets) if voluntary targets under the Mansion House accord are not met. The Lords had stripped out this provision three times; the government insisted on restoring it with time-limited safeguards running to 2035. Position: Oppose government power to direct pension fund investments, arguing mandation risks poor returns for pensioners, represents inappropriate state interference in investment decisions, and that the pension industry itself has grave concerns PensionsPensions Policyrightagainst govt | No | 28 Apr 2026 |
Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 MPs voted on two sets of regulations that would allow the government to suspend or withdraw asylum support — including accommodation and financial assistance — from asylum seekers found to be working illegally, and remove the automatic duty on the Home Secretary to provide support in all cases. The vote matters because it affects the living conditions of over 100,000 asylum seekers and shapes the balance between deterring rule-breaking and avoiding destitution. Position: Oppose the regulations as punitive measures that risk destituting vulnerable asylum seekers without addressing root causes, such as the ban on working, that force people into illegal activity. AsylumAsylum RightsImmigrationleftagainst govt | No | 28 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: 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 |
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 Lords' position on amendment 88D, opposing the government's response to the upper chamber PensionsPensions Policycentreagainst govt | No | 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: Oppose the government's position on amendment LA439, backing the alternative approach proposed in or against LA439 Crime and PolicingCriminal JusticePolicingcross-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 |
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 106 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 106 cannot be determined, but the vote represents the Commons deciding whether to keep or overturn a Lords modification to this wide-ranging children's legislation. Position: Support retaining Lords Amendment 106, backing the change the unelected chamber made 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 retaining Lords Amendment 78, backing the change the House of Lords inserted into the Pension Schemes Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementproceduralagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 41B MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Without debate excerpts, the precise content of Lords Amendment 41B is unknown, but the government (Labour) sought to overturn this Lords change and restore its original position. Position: Support retaining the Lords' amendment 41B, opposing the government's attempt to override the change made by the upper chamber Child WellbeingEducationSchoolsrightagainst 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 Lords amendment, opposing the government's power to mandate where pension funds invest, arguing it is wrong in principle and threatens pensioners' interests PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 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: Back the Lords amendment, opposing giving ministers the power to direct how private pension funds invest savers' money PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion relating to Lords Amendment 102 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 precise content of Lords Amendment 102 cannot be determined, but the vote decided whether the Commons would override that Lords change. Position: Support retaining Lords Amendment 102, opposing the government's attempt to remove or replace it Child WellbeingEducationSchoolsrightagainst 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 |
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 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 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 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: Oppose removing Lords Amendment 333, arguing it contained important protections and deserved proper parliamentary consideration Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 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 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 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 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 |
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 |
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 keeping the Lords amendment on private prosecution financing, arguing it adds transparency and stronger protections within the criminal justice system Crime & Policingproceduralagainst govt | No | 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 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 |
