Motion to sit in private
Friday, 28 March 2025 · Division No. 156 · Commons
599 MPs did not vote
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
2 MPs voted against their party whip
What They Said in the Debate
Labour · Lewisham East
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
Labour · Rother Valley
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.
Conservative · Reigate
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
Liberal Democrats · North Herefordshire
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
Labour · Plymouth Moor View
Intervener; highlights that the problem is particularly acute in rural areas like Plymouth, where geography makes distant placements more likely.
Voted No
Labour · Beckenham and Penge
Intervener; welcomes government support for kinship carers as part of broader strategy to address distance placements.
Voted No
Labour · Bury North
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
Motion to Disagree with the Lords in their Amendment 49F (Data Use and Access Bill)
3 Jun 2025
Data Use and Access Bill: motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 49D
22 May 2025
Closure motion
16 May 2025
Data (Use and Access) Bill CCLM: motion to insist Commons Amendment 32
14 May 2025
Sit in private
25 Apr 2025
Closure motion
25 Apr 2025
Motion to sit in private
7 Mar 2025
Motion to adjourn debate
24 Jan 2025