Motion to sit in private

Friday, 7 March 2025 · Division No. 113 · Commons

1Ayes

–

75Noes

Defeated

570 MPs did not vote

proceduralGovernment defeatedPro Parliamentary Transparency(No)Pro Open Government(No)Pro Public Scrutiny(No)Procedural Obstruction(Yes)

Voting Yes means

Support holding this parliamentary session in private, away from public scrutiny

Voting No means

Oppose closing the session to the public, insisting on open and transparent proceedings

What happened: On 7 March 2025, the House of Commons voted on a procedural motion to sit in private, which would have excluded the public and press from the chamber. The motion was defeated by 75 votes to 1, with the overwhelming majority of participating MPs rejecting secret proceedings.

Why it matters: A motion to sit in private, if passed, would have cleared the public galleries and barred press access to the parliamentary session, removing the transparency that underpins democratic accountability. The near-unanimous rejection means that the day's business, which included debates on the Green Spaces Bill, the Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill, and the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill, continued in full public view. The result preserves the principle that parliamentary proceedings are open to citizens and journalists as a matter of course.

The politics: The motion was tabled by Labour MP John Grady and attracted only one supporting vote, with 75 MPs voting against. Labour MPs made up the largest bloc of those voting no, alongside Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, reflecting a cross-party consensus in favour of transparency. No party formally supported the motion. Such motions are a recognised procedural device under Standing Order No. 163 and are almost always rejected; this result follows that established pattern firmly.

How They Voted

Government position: No

Labour PartyWhipped No

3 Aye/47 No

3 rebels: John Grady, Katrina Murray, Rachel Hopkins

Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No

0 Aye/24 No

Liberal DemocratsWhipped No

0 Aye/3 No

Labour and Co-operative Party

0 Aye/2 No

Independent

0 Aye/1 No

3 MPs voted against their party whip

What They Said in the Debate

Kit Malthouse

Conservative · North West Hampshire

Opposed

Strongly critical of weakened Bill; argues it is a 'cosmetic pup' that removes crucial provisions (school ban and age-of-consent raise) and represents capitulation to big tech; calls for substantive legislative action, not mere guidance.

Voted No

Sir Ashley Fox

Conservative · Bridgwater

Questioning

Questions why Bill lacks legislative teeth; asks what happened to original provisions for age-of-consent raise and school phone ban; suggests proposed measures could be achieved by ministerial action alone.

Voted No

Josh MacAlister

Labour · Whitehaven and Workington

Supportive

Bill proposer arguing for Government action on smartphone and social media harms to children; advocates evidence-based approach using Bradford Hill criteria; frames issue as collective action problem requiring legislation alongside parental responsibility.

Voted No

Helen Hayes

Labour · Dulwich and West Norwood

Supportive

Supports Bill as important first step but shares concern Government is acting too slowly; emphasizes evidence of harms and urges faster implementation of guidance and stronger future legislation; notes Education Committee recommendations for school ban and age-of-consent raise.

Voted No

Rebecca Paul

Conservative · Reigate

Supportive

Supports Bill as parent and MP; advocates for digital age-of-consent raise to 16 and statutory school phone ban; acknowledges collective action problem and calls for state intervention to support parents struggling with peer pressure.

Voted No

Caroline Voaden

Liberal Democrat · South Devon

Supportive

Co-sponsor expressing disappointment at Bill's reduced scope; announces Liberal Democrat amendment to Data (Use and Access) Bill to raise digital age of consent; calls for statutory school phone ban and public health campaign approach.

Voted No

Jess Asato

Labour · Lowestoft

Supportive

Co-sponsor welcoming Bill as starting point for national debate; emphasizes mental health crisis, online sexual harms, and algorithm addiction; calls for age verification in app stores and statutory school phone ban alongside age-of-consent raise.

Voted No

Chris Bryant

Labour · Rhondda and Ogmore

Supportive

Government minister providing supportive interjections; defends value of CMO guidance (comparing to concussion-in-sport advice); confirms Government commitment to robust age verification standards in Online Safety Act.

Voted No