Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1
291Ayes
158Noes
Carried · majority 133 · Government won197 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 291 · No 158 · DNV 197 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
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. 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 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.
Voting Aye meant
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 meant
Support the Lords amendment, backing stronger victims' rights now including wider access to free court transcripts and enhanced ability to challenge unduly lenient sentences
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
267
0
94
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
85
31
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
58
14
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
23
0
19
Independent
—
3
3
7
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
2
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
0
1
Your Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,839 words) →
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.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,700 words) →
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.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (117 words) →
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.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,122 words) →
Supports all Lords amendments, particularly on free court transcripts, ULS scheme reform, and victims code for overseas homicides; urges Government to implement quickly.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (955 words) →
Supports Lords amendment 2 on victims code for overseas homicides; emphasises statutory protections needed because guidance alone is insufficient and inconsistently applied.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,712 words) →
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.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (816 words) →
Supports Government rejection of Lords amendments 4 and 7; argues Lord Chancellor needs power to regulate private prosecution costs to control public spending.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (445 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0