Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 41
316Ayes
171Noes
Carried · majority 145 · Government won161 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 316 · No 171 · DNV 161 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 9 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 41 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which would have replaced the government's proposed numeric cap on branded school uniform items with a monetary price cap. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 316 votes to 171. The vote determines how schools in England will be required to manage uniform costs for parents. The government's approach limits the number of branded items a school can require pupils to wear. The Lords amendment backed by opposition parties would instead have set a ceiling on the total price of required branded uniform, giving schools flexibility over how many branded items they use while keeping overall costs down. The practical difference is significant: critics of the government's position argued a numeric cap does not guarantee affordability, while the government argued a price cap would create perverse incentives for schools to require more branded items up to the financial limit. The vote split almost entirely along party lines. All 310 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. All 97 Conservatives, 61 Liberal Democrats, and 3 Democratic Unionist Party MPs who voted opposed the motion. Four Green MPs voted with the government. The bill is at a late stage, having completed its Lords passage, and this division was part of a broader round of ping-pong (the back-and-forth between the two chambers when Lords amendments are disputed) in which the government rejected a number of changes made in the upper house.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's approach of capping the number of branded uniform items schools can require, rejecting a Lords-backed price cap alternative
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment imposing a monetary price cap on branded school uniform, arguing this is more practical and better protects parents from high costs than a numeric item limit
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
281
0
80
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
97
19
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
61
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
2
6
5
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
1
7
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
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
1
1
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