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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 |
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 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 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 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 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 |
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 |
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 government's plan to increase National Insurance on employer pension contributions made via salary sacrifice, rejecting the Lords' amendment PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 23 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 the government rejecting Lords Amendment 6, maintaining the original bill's approach to employer National Insurance on pension contributions PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 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 government overriding the Lords and pressing ahead with increasing employer National Insurance on pension contributions without the Lords' proposed protection PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 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 the government's position by rejecting the Lords' amendment to the National Insurance employer pensions contributions legislation PensionsTaxationleftwith govt | Yes | 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 rejecting the Lords' amendment and keeping the original Bill, which increases employer national insurance on pension contributions without the additional safeguards for lower and middle earners that the Lords proposed. PensionsTaxationrightwith govt | Yes | 23 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
.jpeg?trim=26,0,27,0&crop=&width=1200&auto=webp&quality=75)
