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
MPs voted on 9 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 17 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which would have required local authorities to record in a looked-after child's care plan any contact arrangements with siblings they are not living with. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 306 votes to 182. The amendment addressed a gap in children's social care law. While the Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to allow looked-after children reasonable contact with their parents, no equivalent legal requirement exists for contact with siblings. Rejecting the amendment means that gap remains, and local authorities are not legally obliged to document sibling contact arrangements in care plans. The government argued that its wider children's social care reforms, including plans to create 10,000 additional foster placements and expand kinship care, would protect sibling relationships without the need for a specific statutory recording duty. The vote split entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 306 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. Conservatives (94), Liberal Democrats (62), Plaid Cymru (4), the Greens (4), Reform UK (4) and the Democratic Unionist Party (3) all voted against. Six independents voted no and one voted aye. A related division on 15 April 2026 involving further Lords amendments to the same bill produced a similar pattern, suggesting the government faced sustained Lords and cross-opposition resistance throughout the bill's passage.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government in rejecting the Lords amendment, trusting that wider social care reforms will protect sibling relationships without a specific statutory recording requirement.
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment requiring care plans to document sibling contact arrangements, giving looked-after children a stronger legal footing to maintain one of their most important relationships.
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
61
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
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