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 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 |
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: Support the government rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping ministers' power to direct pension fund investments in the Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementleftwith 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 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 |
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 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 |
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 |
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 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 |
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 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 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 |
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 |
Courts and Tribunals Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading MPs voted on a Conservative reasoned amendment opposing the Courts and Tribunals Bill at Second Reading. The Bill, introduced by David Lammy, aims to modernise the criminal justice system, but the opposition attempted to block its progress, with concerns raised about the impact on jury trials and the effect on black and minority ethnic defendants. Position: Support allowing the Courts and Tribunals Bill to proceed, backing government reforms to modernise courts and tribunals while retaining jury trials as a cornerstone of justice Constitution and Democracyleftwith govt | No | 10 Mar 2026 |
Courts and Tribunals Bill: Second Reading MPs voted on whether to give initial approval to a Courts and Tribunals Bill, which proposes modernising the criminal justice system. Debate focused on whether reforms — including potential changes to when juries are used — are necessary to clear court backlogs, while critics raised concerns about protecting jury trial rights and disproportionate impacts on minority ethnic defendants. Position: Support modernising the courts and criminal justice system, including reforms to jury thresholds, to make it fit for the 21st century Constitution and Democracycentrewith govt | Yes | 10 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 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 |
