Pensions Schemes Bill: Govt motion relating to Lords Reason 88D Vote on a government motion relating to Lords Amendment 88D to the Pension Schemes Bill, in which the Commons responded to the Lords' reasoning for their amendment. This is part of parliamentary 'ping-pong' between the two Houses over the content of the Pension Schemes Bill. Position: Support the government's position in rejecting or modifying the Lords' amendment 88D to the Pension Schemes Bill PensionsPensions Policycentrewith govt | Yes | 22 Apr 2026 |
Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026 MPs voted to approve regulations extending the government's powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022 for a further period, allowing ministers to continue measures aimed at reducing the burden of energy policy costs on household bills, including shifting some renewables obligation funding away from direct consumer charges. Position: Support extending the government's legal powers to manage and reduce energy costs for households and businesses, including flexibility over how renewable energy policy costs are funded Energyenergy-policyleftwith govt | Yes | 22 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating Lords Reasons 359B and 439B Vote on a procedural motion in the Crime and Policing Bill concerning the government's response to two specific Lords amendments (359B and 439B). Without debate excerpts, the exact substance of those Lords amendments is unknown, but the Commons was deciding whether to accept or reject changes the House of Lords had made to the bill. Position: Support the government's position on Lords amendments 359B and 439B to the Crime and Policing Bill, likely rejecting or modifying the Lords' proposed changes Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Amendments 2D and 2E The Commons voted on a motion relating to Lords Amendments 2D and 2E to the Crime and Policing Bill. Without debate excerpts, the precise content of these Lords amendments is unknown, but this vote determined whether the Commons accepted or rejected changes the House of Lords had made to the Bill. Position: Support the government's position on Lords Amendments 2D and 2E to the Crime and Policing Bill, likely rejecting or modifying the Lords' changes Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Reason 342B Vote on a procedural motion relating to a Lords amendment (342B) to the Crime and Policing Bill, where the Commons considered the Lords' reasoning for a change to the bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific policy substance cannot be determined, but this reflects a disagreement between the Commons and Lords over a provision in the bill. Position: Support the Commons position in rejecting or disagreeing with the Lords' reasoning on amendment 342B to the Crime and Policing Bill Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Reason 11B A procedural vote during the ping-pong stage of the Crime and Policing Bill, where the Commons considered its response to a Lords amendment (Lords Reason 11B). Without debate excerpts it is not possible to determine the specific policy content, but the vote determined whether the Commons accepted or rejected the Lords' position on a provision within the Bill. Position: Support the Commons (government) position in response to Lords Reason 11B, rejecting or qualifying the Lords' proposed change to the Crime and Policing Bill Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingwith govt | Yes | 20 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 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 |
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 |
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion relating to Lords Amendment 106 MPs voted on whether to accept or reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific content of Lords Amendment 106 cannot be determined, but the vote represents the Commons deciding whether to keep or overturn a Lords modification to this wide-ranging children's legislation. Position: Support the government's position to disagree with Lords Amendment 106, effectively rejecting the Lords' change to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Child WellbeingEducationSchoolsleftwith govt | Yes | 15 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 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 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 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 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 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 |
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 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 |
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 |
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 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 |
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 |
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 |
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: 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 |
