Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 102
315Ayes
163Noes
Carried · majority 152 · Government won170 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 315 · No 163 · DNV 170 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 9 March 2026, MPs voted on whether to reject Lords Amendment 102 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which would have protected oversubscribed schools rated good or outstanding by Ofsted from being directed to reduce their pupil admission numbers. The government moved to disagree with the amendment, meaning it wanted to preserve its power to require such schools to take in fewer pupils. The motion passed by 315 votes to 163. The vote matters because it determines whether popular, highly rated schools can be compelled to shrink their intake. The bill gives the schools adjudicator greater powers over admission numbers, and the government argues this is needed to allow local authorities to plan school places more coherently across an area. The Lords amendment would have carved out good and outstanding schools from that power, limiting the ability of authorities to redirect demand toward less popular schools. Opponents argued the change would restrict parental choice and reduce the total number of places at schools that parents most want their children to attend. The division was almost entirely along party lines. All 307 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, joined by four Green MPs and a small number of others. All 97 Conservative MPs who voted and all 61 Liberal Democrats who voted opposed the government's motion, along with three Democratic Unionist Party MPs and one independent. There were no notable cross-party rebellions recorded. The vote is part of a broader set of Lords amendments the government sought to remove at this stage of the bill's passage, with a further division on the same amendment recorded on 15 April 2026, when the Lords returned the matter, suggesting continued disagreement between the two chambers.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's power to reduce pupil admission numbers at oversubscribed schools, rejecting the Lords' attempt to protect good and outstanding schools from mandatory cuts to their intake
Voting No meant
Oppose forcing good and outstanding oversubscribed schools to reduce their pupil numbers, arguing this undermines parental choice and school standards
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
280
0
81
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
97
19
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
61
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
—
2
1
10
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
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist 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