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 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 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 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: New Clause 11 Vote on a Liberal Democrat amendment requiring the government to index the thresholds for the inheritance tax relief on agricultural land to inflation and rising land values, rather than keeping them fixed. Lib Dem and other MPs argued that static thresholds would erode the relief over time and hurt family farmers. Position: Oppose mandatory indexation of agricultural inheritance tax thresholds, preferring to keep fixed thresholds as set in the legislation EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 11 Mar 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 5 A Conservative amendment to the Finance Bill concerning income tax thresholds. The Conservatives argued that Labour's approach of higher taxes, spending and borrowing is harming families and businesses, while Labour MPs defended their fiscal decisions as necessary to restore public finances and invest in public services. Position: Reject the Conservative amendment, backing the government's existing income tax threshold policy as part of restoring fiscal order EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 11 Mar 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 6 Vote on whether to abolish the Agricultural Property Relief (APR) inheritance tax changes targeting family farms — Amendment 6, tabled by the Conservatives, sought to remove the Government's proposed reform that limits inheritance tax relief on agricultural property, which critics argue threatens family farms. Position: Oppose the amendment, backing the Government's approach of reforming agricultural inheritance tax relief while raising thresholds, arguing it is fair and fiscally necessary EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | No | 11 Mar 2026 |
Finance (No. 2) Bill: Third Reading Vote to pass the Finance (No. 2) Bill at its final stage in the Commons, including a procedural Ways and Means motion moved after the Bill — an unusual departure from standard practice that drew criticism from the SNP, though the government acknowledged this and pledged to avoid it in future. Position: Support passing the government's Finance Bill into law, backing the Budget measures it contains EconomyTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 11 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 |
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 |
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 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 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 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 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 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 |
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 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 |
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: 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 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 |
