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 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 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 |
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 |
Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Vote on regulations to raise university tuition fees in England by 2.71% for 2026-27. The Labour government backed the increase, while opposition MPs (Conservatives) criticised it as an added burden on young people, despite their own party having nearly tripled fees in 2012. Position: Oppose the tuition fee increase, arguing it adds to the financial burden on young people in a difficult labour market EducationHigher Educationcentreagainst govt | No | 18 Mar 2026 |
Opposition day motion: fuel duty The opposition brought forward a motion calling for action on fuel duty, likely opposing a planned increase or calling for a freeze or cut. This matters because fuel duty directly affects the cost of driving for households and businesses across the UK. Position: Oppose the opposition's motion, backing the government's existing approach to fuel duty — likely defending a planned increase or rejecting the opposition's proposed policy TaxationTransportleftwith govt | No | 18 Mar 2026 |
Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 Vote on regulations giving the new Fair Work Agency (created by the Employment Rights Act 2025) the same investigatory powers previously held by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, including surveillance tools. Conservatives argued these state-level surveillance powers were disproportionate for a labour enforcement body; the Lib Dems backed the government. Position: Support transferring investigatory and surveillance powers to the Fair Work Agency as a necessary consequence of merging labour enforcement functions into the new body Constitution and DemocracyEmploymentleftwith govt | Yes | 18 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 |
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 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 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 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 106 The Commons voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (106) that would have put a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools into law. The government argued its strengthened guidance already ensures schools are mobile phone-free 'bell to bell' and that legislation is unnecessary, while the Lords wanted a formal legal requirement. Position: Support the government's position that strengthened guidance is sufficient to enforce mobile phone bans in schools, rejecting a statutory requirement added by the Lords EducationSchoolscentrewith 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 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 |
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 |
Opposition Day: Protections for children from online harms The opposition brought forward a motion calling for stronger protections for children from online harms. As an Opposition Day motion, it was debated on time allocated to the opposition and the Labour government voted against it. Position: Reject the opposition's motion, defending the government's existing approach to child online safety — likely arguing current legislation (such as the Online Safety Act) is sufficient or that the motion is politically motivated Digital and TechnologyOnline Safetycross-cuttingwith govt | No | 24 Feb 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 |
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee: Amendment 1 Vote on whether to ban UK government export finance or insurance for goods where there is reason to believe they may be re-exported to Russia or other sanctioned countries, and separately to ban export finance where modern slavery or human trafficking is involved. This Opposition amendment would have set the financial assistance limit to zero in such cases. Position: Oppose this restriction, likely arguing existing sanctions law and due diligence requirements are sufficient without additional legislative constraints on export finance BusinessEconomycross-cuttingwith govt | No | 23 Feb 2026 |
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee: New Clause 2 Vote on opposition amendments to the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill that would have restricted UK Export Finance support where goods might be re-exported to Russia or other sanctioned countries, and separately where exports involve modern slavery or human trafficking. The amendments sought to cap the Secretary of State's financial commitments to zero in such cases. Position: Oppose these restrictions, preferring the government retain flexibility in how UK Export Finance is used without these additional conditions BusinessEconomycross-cuttingwith govt | No | 23 Feb 2026 |
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill Committee: New Clause 3 Vote on New Clause 3, an amendment to the bill removing the two-child benefit limit. Based on the debate, this related to additional reporting or consultation requirements around the removal of the limit, which the government was already supporting in principle but opposed this specific clause. Position: Oppose the additional requirements in New Clause 3, backing the government's approach to removing the two-child limit without extra conditions attached Universal CreditWelfare and Benefitsrightwith govt | No | 23 Feb 2026 |
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee: New Clause 3 Vote on New Clause 3, which would have required the government to report on UK Export Finance's impact on GDP and support for small and medium-sized businesses. The government opposed it on the grounds that existing reporting requirements already cover this information. Position: Oppose the new reporting clause as unnecessary, since the government argues existing legal reporting obligations already capture this information BusinessEconomycross-cuttingwith govt | No | 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 |
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 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 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 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 |
