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
On 9 March 2026, the House of Commons voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 41 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The motion passed by 316 votes to 171, with the government's Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs voting unanimously in favour of rejecting the Lords' change. The vote returns the bill to its pre-amendment form on this particular provision. This was one of several votes on the same day in which the Commons pushed back against alterations made to the bill in the House of Lords. By rejecting Amendment 41, the Commons reasserts the government's original policy intentions for the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill -- a wide-ranging piece of legislation covering children's social care, school attendance, home education registration, and related areas. The precise content of Amendment 41 is not detailed in the available debate record, but the broader bill touches on issues including oversight of home-educated children, breakfast clubs, and school inclusion policy, all of which have attracted significant public and political attention. The division followed clear party lines. All voting Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs -- 310 in total -- supported the government's position, as did all four Green MPs and two independents. All 97 voting Conservatives, all 61 voting Liberal Democrats, and smaller unionist parties voted to retain the Lords amendment. There were no notable cross-party rebels from the government benches. This vote sat alongside at least three other Commons rejections of Lords amendments to the same bill on the same day (Amendments 16, 102, and 106), suggesting the government was engaged in a systematic effort to restore its original text -- a process known in parliamentary terms as "ping-pong," where a bill passes back and forth between the two chambers until agreement is reached.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords' price cap on school uniforms, preferring the government's existing approach of limiting the number of compulsory branded uniform items
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment introducing a direct price cap on branded school uniform items as a better way to reduce costs for parents
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
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
2
7
4
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
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 · 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