Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37
321Ayes
106Noes
Carried · majority 215 · Government won223 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 321 · No 106 · DNV 223 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 9 March 2026, the House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 37 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, a process known as "disagreeing with" a Lords amendment during the parliamentary ping-pong stage -- the back-and-forth between the two chambers when they disagree on legislation. The motion passed by 321 votes to 106, restoring the government's original position on whichever provision that amendment addressed. By overturning this Lords amendment, the government maintained its preferred version of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill in this area. The bill covers a wide range of children's policy, including school oversight, home education registration, and children's social care. Rejecting Lords changes means the government's original drafting on this specific provision will stand, unless the Lords insist again and the chambers negotiate a compromise. The practical effect on families, schools, or local authorities depends on what Amendment 37 specifically contained -- no Hansard debate extracts were available for this division, so the precise policy substance cannot be stated with certainty from the available material. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 277 Labour MPs and 29 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government, joined by Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and the SNP. The opposition was led by 96 Conservative MPs, alongside the DUP and SDLP, and a handful of independents. There were no notable Labour rebels. This division was one of several on the same date in which the Commons rejected multiple Lords amendments to the same bill -- including Amendment 102, Amendment 106, and Amendment 16 -- suggesting a broader pattern of the government pushing back against the Lords' changes to this legislation as a whole.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's approach of substituting its own amendments in lieu of the Lords' version, backing the government's specific free school meals expansion plan
Voting No meant
Prefer the Lords' original amendment, potentially seeking a broader or differently framed entitlement on free school meals or child poverty measures
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
96
20
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
4
3
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
3
0
6
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
1
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
—
1
0
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_vote_recorded · 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 aye · 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