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: Oppose removing the Lords amendment, arguing it should be kept to guarantee victims stronger rights to free court transcripts and to challenge unduly lenient sentences now, rather than relying on future government promises Crime & Policingproceduralagainst govt | No | 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 retaining the Lords amendment to create a statutory duty giving victims stronger rights to notification and access to compensation schemes, arguing the government's promises are insufficient Crime & Policingcentreagainst govt | No | 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 Lords amendment, backing greater transparency in the criminal justice system and stronger rights for victims to access court transcripts and challenge lenient sentences Crime & Policingcentreagainst govt | No | 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 keeping the Lords amendment to give victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences and improve transparency in the criminal justice system Crime & Policingproceduralagainst govt | No | 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 Lords amendment, backing stronger victims' rights now including wider access to free court transcripts and enhanced ability to challenge unduly lenient sentences Crime & Policingcentreagainst govt | No | 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 keeping the Lords amendment on private prosecution financing, arguing it adds transparency and stronger protections within the criminal justice system Crime & Policingproceduralagainst govt | No | 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: Support the opposition's position on oil and gas, likely backing continued or expanded North Sea production and opposing Labour's restrictions on new licences EnergyEnvironmentrightagainst govt | Yes | 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: Support the opposition's position on defence, likely calling for stronger commitments on defence spending or criticising the government's approach to national security Defence and Foreign AffairsDefence Spendingcross-cuttingagainst govt | Yes | 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 keeping Lords Amendment 6, backing the change the House of Lords made to the employer NI pension contributions rules PensionsTaxationrightagainst govt | No | 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 keeping the Lords' amendment, which sought to protect lower and middle earners — including those using salary sacrifice pension arrangements — from the knock-on effects of higher employer national insurance on pension contributions. PensionsTaxationleftagainst govt | No | 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 Lords amendment, opposing the NI increase on employer pension contributions — particularly to protect small businesses, charities, and pension saving incentives PensionsTaxationrightagainst govt | No | 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 Lords' amendment, opposing the government's extension of National Insurance to employer pension contributions under salary sacrifice arrangements PensionsTaxationrightagainst govt | No | 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 retaining the Lords' amendment, disagreeing with the government's approach to employer National Insurance contributions on pensions PensionsTaxationrightagainst govt | No | 23 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: Support reviewing or reforming the student loans system, potentially to reduce the burden on graduates through lower interest rates, better repayment terms, or wider debt relief EducationHigher Educationleftagainst 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: Support the opposition's position on fuel duty — likely backing a freeze or cut to ease cost-of-living pressures on drivers TaxationTransportrightagainst govt | Yes | 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: Oppose granting the Fair Work Agency extensive surveillance powers, arguing they are disproportionate for a labour enforcement agency and represent state overreach Constitution and DemocracyEmploymentrightagainst govt | No | 18 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: Oppose the Bill, citing concerns that reforms could undermine jury trial rights and disproportionately harm defendants from black and minority ethnic backgrounds Constitution and Democracycentreagainst govt | No | 10 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 blocking the Courts and Tribunals Bill, opposing changes to the criminal justice system including potential reductions in jury trial eligibility Constitution and Democracyrightagainst govt | Yes | 10 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 Lords amendment to strengthen protections for sibling relationships among looked-after children, disagreeing that existing or planned reforms are sufficient EducationSchoolsrightagainst govt | No | 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 Lords amendment to enshrine a mobile phone ban in schools in law, rather than relying on government guidance EducationSchoolscentreagainst govt | No | 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: Back the Lords amendment requiring a formal review of funding for adoptive and special guardian families, arguing greater scrutiny and accountability is needed EducationSchoolscentreagainst govt | No | 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: Prefer the Lords' original amendment, potentially seeking a broader or differently framed entitlement on free school meals or child poverty measures EducationSchoolsrightagainst govt | No | 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 the Lords amendment introducing a direct price cap on branded school uniform items as a better way to reduce costs for parents EducationSchoolsrightagainst govt | No | 9 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: Oppose restricting good and outstanding schools from admitting more pupils, arguing parental choice drives school improvement and popular schools should be allowed to grow EducationSchoolsrightagainst govt | No | 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: Back the Lords amendment requiring parental consent for referrals to child protection support, arguing this would better safeguard children like Sara Sharif EducationSchoolsrightagainst govt | No | 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 Lords amendment to ban under-16s from social media, arguing this is necessary to protect children from harmful algorithms and content EducationSchoolscentreagainst govt | No | 9 Mar 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: Support blocking UK export finance for goods likely to be re-exported to sanctioned countries like Russia, and for exports linked to modern slavery or human trafficking BusinessEconomycross-cuttingagainst govt | Yes | 23 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: Oppose removing the two-child limit, likely citing fiscal cost concerns or preference for keeping existing welfare constraints Universal CreditWelfare and Benefitsrightagainst 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: Support restricting public export finance where goods risk being re-exported to Russia or sanctioned countries, and where exports are linked to modern slavery or human trafficking BusinessEconomycross-cuttingagainst govt | Yes | 23 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: Oppose the reduction in free carbon allowances, arguing it raises the carbon tax on businesses and will increase household energy bills Climate ChangeEnvironmentrightagainst govt | No | 4 Feb 2026 |
