Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 17
306Ayes
182Noes
Carried · majority 124 · Government won161 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 306 · No 182 · DNV 161 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 9 March 2026, the House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 17 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, passing the motion to disagree by 306 votes to 182. The amendment had been inserted by the House of Lords during the bill's passage through the upper chamber, and the government brought it back to the Commons to be overturned. The result means the Commons sided with the government's original version of the bill rather than the Lords' revised text. The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a significant piece of legislation covering a wide range of education and child welfare policy in England. By rejecting Amendment 17, the Commons preserved the government's preferred approach to whichever provision the Lords had sought to change -- returning the bill closer to its original form. The vote is one of several instances on the same day in which the Commons disagreed with Lords amendments, suggesting a broader pattern of the government resisting substantial changes made by the upper chamber. The outcome has direct implications for schools, local authorities, and families affected by the policies in the bill. The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 306 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's position, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Greens, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, and the DUP all voted against -- a total of 182 Noes. There were no notable cross-party rebels on either side. This division was one of at least four similar votes on Lords amendments to the same bill on the same day, with comparable results each time, indicating a sustained effort by the government to restore its original legislative text after the Lords made a series of modifications.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment on sibling relationships for looked-after children, trusting that wider social care reforms will better address the issue
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment to strengthen protections for sibling relationships among looked-after children, disagreeing that existing or planned reforms are sufficient
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
277
0
84
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
94
22
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
1
7
5
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
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
Your 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