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: Support tightening asylum support rules by giving ministers power to withdraw assistance from those who breach conditions, as part of a firmer but fairer asylum framework. AsylumAsylum RightsImmigrationrightwith govt | Yes | 28 Apr 2026 |
Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 MPs voted on new rules allowing the government to suspend or cut off housing and financial support for failed asylum seekers who work illegally, and removing the automatic duty to provide support in all cases. Supporters argued it targets misuse of the system; critics warned it risks pushing vulnerable people onto councils and charities without giving asylum seekers the right to work. Position: Support tightening asylum support rules by allowing suspension of accommodation and financial assistance where asylum seekers work illegally, and removing the blanket duty to provide support in all cases. AsylumHomelessness and Housing SupportImmigrationrightwith govt | Yes | 28 Apr 2026 |
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: Oppose the referral, arguing the motion is a political stunt that pre-empts an ongoing Humble Address process already agreed by the House, and that the Prime Minister's statements to Parliament were accurate Constitution and DemocracyParliamentary Accountabilitycross-cuttingwith govt | No | 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: Support giving ministers a time-limited reserve power to mandate pension fund asset allocation if voluntary investment targets fail, arguing this underpins the Mansion House accord and ultimately serves savers' interests PensionsPensions Policyleftwith govt | Yes | 28 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 government rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the power for the government to direct pension fund investments despite concerns it overrides trustees' duties to members PensionsPensions and Retirementleftwith govt | Yes | 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 the government's decision to reject Lords Amendment 43 to the Pension Schemes Bill, maintaining the Commons' version of the pension reform legislation PensionsPensions and Retirementleftwith govt | Yes | 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 the government's position to disagree with Lords Amendment 106, effectively rejecting the Lords' change to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Child WellbeingEducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 77 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment requiring a review of the cost and long-term sustainability of public sector pension schemes. The Lords wanted transparency about the growing financial liabilities of public sector pensions, which are largely funded from current taxation rather than investment funds. Position: Support rejecting the Lords' call for a review of public sector pension costs and sustainability, keeping the Bill as the government intended PensionsPensions and Retirementleftwith govt | Yes | 15 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 the government's decision to reject Lords Amendment 35 to the Pension Schemes Bill, restoring the government's preferred approach to pension scheme reform PensionsPensions and Retirementcentrewith govt | Yes | 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 rejecting the Lords amendment, backing the government's original scale requirement that could compel smaller pension schemes to consolidate regardless of their individual performance PensionsPensions and Retirementleftwith govt | Yes | 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 the government's position of rejecting or disagreeing with Lords Amendment 102 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Child WellbeingEducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pensions Scheme Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 The Commons voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Pensions Scheme Bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific content of Lords Amendment 5 cannot be determined, but the government (Labour) sought to overturn it and restore its original position. Position: Support the government's decision to reject the Lords' amendment and restore the original Bill text PensionsPensions and Retirementproceduralwith govt | Yes | 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 the government's rejection of Lords Amendment 78 to the Pension Schemes Bill, restoring the Bill to its pre-Lords form on this point PensionsPensions and Retirementproceduralwith govt | Yes | 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 the government's position of rejecting Lords Amendment 38, restoring the original Commons text of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Child WellbeingEducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 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 the government's decision to reject Lords Amendment 41B and restore the Commons' original position on this clause of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Child WellbeingEducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 15 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 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 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 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 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 |
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 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: Support accepting the package of Lords amendments (including government-negotiated compromises) to finalise the Crime and Policing Bill 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 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 |
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 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 |
