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 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 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 |
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 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 |
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 |
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: student loans An opposition party brought forward a motion calling for changes to the student loans system, likely addressing issues such as repayment terms, interest rates, or debt levels. Opposition day motions are symbolic but signal where parties stand on an issue; the government voted it down. Position: Oppose the opposition's proposed changes to student loans, either defending the current system or rejecting the specific framing of the motion EducationHigher Educationrightwith 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 |
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 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: Support raising university tuition fees by 2.71% for 2026-27, arguing it is necessary to sustain higher education funding EducationHigher Educationcentrewith govt | Yes | 18 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 |
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 |
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 Vote on whether to extend the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to cover maritime shipping activities, requiring ships to purchase carbon allowances for their emissions. The opposition raised concerns about the cost impact on ferry services to UK islands, though Scottish islands were exempted. Position: Support extending carbon pricing to the maritime sector as part of the UK's net zero agenda, accepting that higher costs for shipping and ferries are a necessary part of decarbonising transport Climate ChangeEnvironmentleftwith govt | Yes | 11 Feb 2026 |
Local Government Finance Report (England) 2026-27 MPs voted on whether to approve the government's local government finance settlement for England for 2026-27, which sets out how much funding councils will receive from central government. This matters because it determines the resources available to local authorities to deliver services like social care, housing, and waste collection. Position: Support the Labour government's proposed funding allocation for English councils in 2026-27 Council FundingLocal Governmentleftwith govt | Yes | 11 Feb 2026 |
Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2026-27 MPs voted on the government's proposed principles for determining whether council tax increases in England in 2026-27 require a local referendum. This annual report sets the referendum thresholds — councils that wish to raise council tax above the set limit must hold a local vote to get approval. Position: Support the government's proposed council tax referendum thresholds for 2026-27, allowing councils to raise tax up to the set limits without a referendum Council TaxLocal Governmentcentrewith govt | Yes | 11 Feb 2026 |
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 Vote on a statutory instrument that amends the UK Emissions Trading Scheme from 2027, reducing the supply of free carbon allowances given to businesses — effectively increasing the carbon price they face. The opposition argued this would raise energy bills for households and businesses, while the government backed it as part of meeting climate targets. Position: Support reducing free carbon allowances in the UK ETS, accepting higher carbon costs as necessary to meet climate commitments Climate ChangeEnvironmentleftwith govt | Yes | 4 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 |
Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026 MPs voted on whether to approve new fee regulations for medical devices, which update the charges paid by manufacturers to the medicines regulator (MHRA) for market surveillance and approval. The government revised earlier proposals after concerns that original fee increases would disproportionately burden small and medium-sized businesses in the life sciences sector. Position: Support updated medical device fee regulations, accepting the government's revised approach that attempts to balance regulatory funding with protecting SMEs in the life sciences industry Healthcentrewith govt | Yes | 28 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 |
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 |
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 |
Sentencing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 7 The Lords had amended the Sentencing Bill to require courts to provide free transcripts of judges' sentencing remarks within 14 days of a request, and to publish them online. The government rejected this Lords amendment, arguing it could increase judicial workload and worsen the Crown court backlog, proposing its own alternative amendments instead. Position: Support rejecting the Lords amendment requiring free court transcripts of sentencing remarks within 14 days, preferring the government's own alternative approach Crime & PolicingPrisonsproceduralwith 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 |
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 |
