Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 106
304Ayes
177Noes
Carried · majority 127 · Government won167 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 304 · No 177 · DNV 167 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted 304 to 177 on 9 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 106 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The amendment would have placed a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools on the face of the legislation. The government's motion to disagree with the Lords passed, meaning the statutory ban was removed from the Bill in favour of the existing guidance-based approach. The government's position was that strengthened non-statutory guidance already requires schools to be mobile phone-free from bell to bell, and that Ofsted would begin inspecting schools' phone policies and their enforcement from April 2026. Ministers also pointed to a live consultation, open until 26 May 2026, seeking views on whether the guidance should be placed on a statutory footing. The effect of the vote was to leave the phone ban in guidance rather than in primary legislation, at least pending the consultation's outcome. The division was almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs provided all 304 votes in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, with only one Labour MP recorded as voting against the government. All 98 Conservative MPs voted no, as did all 60 Liberal Democrats, four Green MPs, three DUP members, and a number of independents. Conservative shadow minister Laura Trott argued that the government had shifted its position repeatedly on the issue and that the Lords amendment would have delivered an actual enforceable ban where guidance had not. The vote sits within a broader ping-pong (the exchange of amendments between the Commons and Lords) on the Bill, with several related divisions following in April 2026 on the same and connected amendments.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, preferring guidance, Ofsted inspection, and a live consultation over an immediate statutory phone ban in schools
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment requiring a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools, arguing guidance alone is insufficient and the law should clearly enforce it
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
274
1
86
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
98
18
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
60
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
1
6
6
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 No
0
4
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
1
0
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