Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1

Wednesday, 25 March 2026 · Division No. 461 · Commons

291Ayes
158Noes
Passed

197 MPs did not vote

centreGovernment wonPro Victims Rights(No)Criminal Justice Transparency(No)Lords Amendments Deference(No)Unduly Lenient Sentence Reform(No)

Voting Yes means

Support the government's position of rejecting the Lords amendment, preferring a more cautious, phased approach to expanding victims' rights rather than legislating immediately for broader changes

Voting No means

Support the Lords amendment, backing stronger victims' rights now including wider access to free court transcripts and enhanced ability to challenge unduly lenient sentences

What happened

On 25 March 2026, the House of Commons voted by 291 to 158 to reject Lords Amendment 1 to the Victims and Courts Bill. The amendment concerned access to free court transcripts for victims, and had been inserted by the House of Lords before the bill returned to the Commons. The government moved to disagree with the Lords on this point, and its position prevailed comfortably.

Why it matters

Lords Amendment 1 would have created a legal right for victims to receive free transcripts of court proceedings. At present, victims who want written records of hearings, including sentencing remarks, can face costs running into thousands of pounds, a barrier that many victims and campaigners have highlighted as preventing them from properly processing and recovering from their experiences. By rejecting the amendment, the government kept the bill in a form that does not include a statutory entitlement to free transcripts, though Ministers indicated in debate that they intend to introduce further measures on this subject. A petition on the issue attracted over 200,000 signatures and was debated in Westminster Hall earlier that same week.

The politics

The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 291 Ayes came from Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs, while the 158 Noes were drawn from Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party and several independents. There were no Labour rebels. The government's position attracted criticism not only from opposition parties but from some of its own backbenchers, who pressed Ministers for firmer commitments on timescale. This division was the first in a sequence of six votes on the same day in which the Commons rejected every Lords amendment to the bill, asserting the government's preferred text across the board.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
268 Aye/0 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/85 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0 Aye/58 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
23 Aye/0 No
Independent
2 Aye/3 No
Reform UKWhipped No
0 Aye/4 No
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0 Aye/4 No
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0 Aye/3 No
Democratic Unionist Party
0 Aye/2 No
Your Party
0 Aye/1 No

What They Said in the Debate

Alex Davies-Jones

Labour · Pontypridd

Opposed

Government opposes all Lords amendments as unworkable in current form, but committed to bringing forward improved legislation on transcripts and ULS scheme after consultation and operational assessment.

Voted Aye

Steve Barclay

Conservative · North East Cambridgeshire

Opposed

Criticises Government for inconsistent messaging: claiming to support victims while voting against amendments that would empower them; highlights contradictions between stated commitments and legislative actions.

Voted No

Sarah Champion

Labour · Rotherham

Questioning

Welcomes the Bill's victims focus but confused why Government rejects Lords amendments 1 and 3 on court transcripts when the sentiment aligns with stated objectives.

Voted Aye

Lorraine Beavers

Labour · Blackpool North and Fleetwood

Neutral

Supports Government's Bill but urges reconsideration of Lords amendments 5 and 6 on ULS scheme; argues 28-day deadline is too short for traumatised families despite improved notification.

Voted Aye

Nick Timothy

Conservative · West Suffolk

Supportive

Supports Lords amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as necessary for transparency, victims' rights, and access to justice; criticises Government for blocking sensible reforms despite claiming to support victims.

Voted No

Ben Maguire

Liberal Democrat · North Cornwall

Supportive

Supports all Lords amendments, particularly on free court transcripts, ULS scheme reform, and victims code for overseas homicides; urges Government to implement quickly.

Voted No

Josh Reynolds

Labour · Maidenhead

Supportive

Supports Lords amendment 2 on victims code for overseas homicides; emphasises statutory protections needed because guidance alone is insufficient and inconsistently applied.

Voted No

Pam Cox

Labour · Colchester

Supportive

Supports Government rejection of Lords amendments 4 and 7; argues Lord Chancellor needs power to regulate private prosecution costs to control public spending.

Voted Aye

Related News

Related Votes