Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 38
307Ayes
173Noes
Carried · majority 134 · Government won167 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 307 · No 173 · DNV 167 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 9 March 2026, the House of Commons voted by 307 to 173 to reject Lords Amendment 38 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. This was a "motion to disagree" -- meaning the government asked MPs to overturn a change the House of Lords had inserted into the Bill. The government won comfortably, with the motion passing by a majority of 134. By rejecting Lords Amendment 38, the Commons preserved the government's original version of the relevant clause in the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill -- a wide-ranging piece of legislation covering child protection, school regulation, home education, and related areas. The precise content of Amendment 38 is not detailed in available debate records, but the Bill as a whole makes significant changes to how schools are overseen, how children not in school are tracked, and how local authorities interact with families. Overturning this Lords change means the government's preferred policy position on that specific provision will stand, at least pending any further Lords response in what is known as "parliamentary ping-pong" -- the back-and-forth process between the two chambers when they disagree. The vote followed strict party lines. All 302 Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government; all 98 voting Conservatives and all 61 voting Liberal Democrats voted against, alongside Plaid Cymru, the DUP, and most independents. There was one Labour rebel voting against the government. The SNP, unusually for a devolution-focused party voting on what is primarily an England-and-Wales matter, supplied three votes in favour of the government. This division was one of several held on the same day rejecting Lords amendments to the same Bill, suggesting a broad government effort to restore its original legislative text across multiple contested provisions.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position of rejecting the Lords' proposed under-16 social media ban, preferring alternative regulatory approaches rather than an outright ban
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment to ban under-16s from social media, arguing this is necessary to protect children from harmful algorithms and content
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
273
1
87
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
98
18
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
61
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
2
5
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
—
0
0
5
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
1
0
0
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Your Party
—
0
0
1
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 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