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 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 |
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 government in rejecting the Lords amendment, preserving the 'historical safeguard' that protects legitimate political discourse about terrorism from prosecution under encouragement-of-terrorism laws 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 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 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 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 government's approach of using flexible statutory guidance rather than rigid statutory evidence requirements for youth diversion orders in terrorism cases 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 government's rejection of the Lords amendment, preferring existing tools like the foreign influence registration scheme over formally proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation 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 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 |
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 |
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 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 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 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 |
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 |
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 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 The Commons voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill. The government, backed by Labour MPs, overturned Lords Amendment 6, restoring its original position on employer NI contributions to pensions. Position: Support the government rejecting Lords Amendment 6, maintaining the original bill's approach to employer National Insurance on pension contributions PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 23 Mar 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2 The Lords had amended the National Insurance Bill to protect lower and middle earners from the impact of increased employer pension contribution taxes (including concerns about salary sacrifice arrangements). The Commons voted to reject that Lords amendment, allowing the original Bill to stand without those protections. Position: Support rejecting the Lords' amendment and keeping the original Bill, which increases employer national insurance on pension contributions without the additional safeguards for lower and middle earners that the Lords proposed. PensionsTaxationrightwith govt | Yes | 23 Mar 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3 The House of Commons voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill. The Lords had added Amendment 3, and the government moved to overturn it, meaning the original bill provisions would be restored if the Aye side won. Position: Support the government's position by rejecting the Lords' amendment to the National Insurance employer pensions contributions legislation PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 23 Mar 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 The government asked MPs to reject a Lords amendment (Amendment 5) to the National Insurance Contributions Bill. The Lords had sought to change the government's plan to raise employer National Insurance contributions on pension contributions, which critics argue discourages pension saving and burdens small businesses. Position: Support the government overriding the Lords and pressing ahead with increasing employer National Insurance on pension contributions without the Lords' proposed protection PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 23 Mar 2026 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 The government voted to reject a change made by the House of Lords to a bill increasing National Insurance on employer pension contributions under salary sacrifice arrangements. The Lords had amended the bill, but the government moved to overturn that amendment and proceed with the original policy. Position: Support the government's plan to increase National Insurance on employer pension contributions made via salary sacrifice, rejecting the Lords' amendment PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 23 Mar 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 |
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill Committee: Amendment 5 Vote on whether to exempt basic rate taxpayers (lower earners) from a £2,000 cap on tax relief for employer pension contributions, so the cap would only apply to higher and additional rate taxpayers. The Conservative opposition proposed this to protect younger workers and those on modest incomes from losing pension savings incentives. Position: Oppose the exemption, defending the government's Bill as introduced and applying the £2,000 cap to all taxpayers regardless of income tax rate EconomyPensionsTaxationleftwith govt | No | 21 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 |
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 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: 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: 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: Clause 63 Stand part Vote on whether to include Clause 63 in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which would introduce a tax charge on certain pension interests. This is part of the government's wider package of tax measures for the 2026-27 financial year. Position: Support taxing certain pension interests as part of the government's fiscal package EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 13 Jan 2026 |
