Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 16
309Ayes
181Noes
Carried · majority 128 · Government won157 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 309 · No 181 · DNV 157 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 9 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 16 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which would have required a formal review of funding levels for the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund (ASGSF). The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 309 votes to 181. The ASGSF provides financial support to adoptive families and those caring for children under special guardianship orders. The Lords amendment sought a statutory review of whether that funding is set at the right level. The government argued such a review was redundant given that ministers had already announced £55 million for the fund in 2026-27, confirmed its continuation in 2027-28, and launched a 12-week consultation on adoption support that a separate parallel review would risk undermining. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 278 Labour MPs and 29 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government's motion to reject the amendment. All 97 voting Conservatives, 61 Liberal Democrats, four Plaid Cymru MPs, four Greens, four Reform UK MPs, three Democratic Unionist Party MPs, and two Your Party MPs voted against. Two independent MPs voted with the government, while six voted against. No notable cross-party defections were recorded on either side.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position that a statutory review of ASGSF funding is unnecessary, given the announced £55 million investment and the ongoing consultation on adoption support.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment requiring a formal review of ASGSF funding levels, arguing Parliament should scrutinise whether adoptive and special guardianship families receive adequate financial support.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
278
0
83
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
97
19
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
60
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
2
7
4
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Government should reject Lords amendments on phone bans and social media age restrictions; consultation and regulation-making powers allow faster, more responsive action than statutory legislation.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,099 words) →
Government should accept Lords amendments for statutory phone bans, social media age restrictions, cost caps on school uniforms, and heightened child protection consent requirements; the Government is blocking sensible cross-party improvements out of tribal ideology.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (3,008 words) →
Support a price cap on school uniforms and strengthen adoption/guardianship funding; on social media, reject the Government's consultation framework and demand concrete timelines and commitment to action, not discretionary powers.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,581 words) →
Welcome free school meals and allergy safety measures; urge Government to strengthen guidance on sibling contact in care and school uniform costs, though consultation on social media is justified given stakeholder disagreement.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,085 words) →
Benedict's law on school allergy safety is essential and must be enacted with full statutory force and proper funding; welcome Government's shift but demand full implementation and early sight of amendment wording.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,170 words) →
Age-gate specific harmful functionalities rather than entire social media platforms; support Government consultation to ensure effective, durable, future-proofed legislation rather than hastily-passed bans.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (636 words) →
Any social media or functionality restrictions must be clearly targeted, evidence-based, and effective; blanket bans risk unintended consequences and distract from holding tech companies accountable for existing harms.Scottish National Party · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (831 words) →
Lords amendment 17 on sibling contact in care should be accepted; guidance is insufficient—siblings deserve legal protection equivalent to parental contact rights.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (178 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0