Motion to sit in private

Friday, 28 March 2025 · Division No. 156 · Commons

0Ayes
44Noes
Defeated

599 MPs did not vote

proceduralGovernment defeatedPro Parliamentary Transparency(No)Pro Open Government(No)Pro Closed Proceedings(Yes)Parliamentary Scrutiny(No)

Voting Yes means

Support holding this parliamentary session behind closed doors, excluding the public and press

Voting No means

Oppose excluding the public and press, insisting parliamentary proceedings remain open and transparent

What happened: On 28 March 2025, the House of Commons voted on a motion to sit in private, which would have excluded the public and media from proceedings. The motion was defeated comprehensively, with zero Members voting in favour and 44 voting against. The motion was moved by Chris McDonald MP under Standing Order No. 163, which requires such a motion to be put to the House immediately without debate.

Why it matters: A motion to sit in private, if passed, would have closed the public gallery and excluded journalists from the chamber, suspending the normal principle that parliamentary proceedings are open to scrutiny. The defeat means that the business of the day continued in full public view. The day's agenda included a Second Reading debate on Clive Lewis's Water Bill, the Looked After Children (Distance Placements) Bill brought forward by Jake Richards, and a Westminster Hall-style debate on Down Syndrome Act 2022 guidance. All of these continued to be accessible to the public and on the parliamentary record.

The politics: The vote attracted participation from only a small cross-section of Members present on a Friday sitting, when attendance is traditionally lower as many Members are in their constituencies. Of the 44 Members who voted to reject the motion, 28 were from the Labour Party, 10 from the Conservative and Unionist Party, 7 from Labour and Co-operative, 2 from the Green Party, and 1 Independent. Two Labour Members voted in favour of moving into private session, though this did not alter the outcome. The Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the Democratic Unionist Party, Sinn Fein and Traditional Unionist Voice recorded no votes on either side. The government's position was to oppose the motion, and the result was never in doubt.

How They Voted

Government position: No

Labour PartyWhipped No
2 Aye/28 No

2 rebels: Chris McDonald, Tristan Osborne

Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/10 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/7 No
Green Party of England and Wales
0 Aye/2 No
Independent
0 Aye/1 No

2 MPs voted against their party whip

What They Said in the Debate

Janet Daby

Labour · Lewisham East

Neutral

Government minister; agrees bold action is needed on sufficiency but expresses concern that the Bill's proposals may not add new information since local authorities already publish out-of-area placement data; cautions that distance placements often reflect legitimate care planning, not just insufficiency; questions whether national government should prescriptively direct local authority sufficiency planning.

Voted No

Jake Richards

Labour · Rother Valley

Supportive

Bill proposer; argues that distant placements of looked-after children are now systemic rather than exceptional, affecting thousands; proposes modest measures (data collection, local sufficiency plans, national strategy) to restore proximity as the norm while allowing flexibility for safety and therapeutic cases.

Rebecca Paul

Conservative · Reigate

Supportive

Shadow Minister; commends the Bill's ambition to improve transparency and national leadership on placement sufficiency; acknowledges previous Conservative government reforms (staying put policy, regional adoption agencies); warns that 'so far as reasonably practicable' has become a licence for failure and agrees systemic change is needed.

Voted No

Dr Ellie Chowns

Liberal Democrats · North Herefordshire

Supportive

Intervener; supports the Bill's measures and suggests they could be added to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the Lords; emphasises that alongside structural reform, investment in early intervention and family support is essential to reduce children entering the care system.

Voted No

Fred Thomas

Labour · Plymouth Moor View

Supportive

Intervener; highlights that the problem is particularly acute in rural areas like Plymouth, where geography makes distant placements more likely.

Voted No

Liam Conlon

Labour · Beckenham and Penge

Supportive

Intervener; welcomes government support for kinship carers as part of broader strategy to address distance placements.

Voted No

Mr James Frith

Labour · Bury North

Supportive

Intervener; supports Bill's data-focused approach and notes that the new register of children in the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill complements this objective.

Voted No

Related Votes