Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1
Wednesday, 25 March 2026 · Division No. 461 · Commons
197 MPs did not vote
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
What They Said in the Debate
Labour · Pontypridd
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
Conservative · North East Cambridgeshire
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
Labour · Rotherham
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
Labour · Blackpool North and Fleetwood
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
Conservative · West Suffolk
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
Liberal Democrat · North Cornwall
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
Labour · Maidenhead
Supports Lords amendment 2 on victims code for overseas homicides; emphasises statutory protections needed because guidance alone is insufficient and inconsistently applied.
Voted No
Labour · Colchester
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

'We must not miss chance to stop online sexual exploitation and child abuse'
A call for new laws affecting pornography sites is set for a Commons showdown (file image)(Image: Getty) Opportunities to stop widespread sexual exploitation and child abuse overnight don't come often, but right now the Government has one. In just a matter of weeks, all pornography websites could be forced to verify that everyone in their videos is an adult, gave permission for the video to be published and are able to withdraw their consent at any time. If the Government says 'yes'. You migh

Political opinion: Jess Brown-Fuller calls on Government to introduce free court transcripts in response to petition from residents in Chichester
Jess highlighted that many victims of crime attempt to access court transcripts to aid their recovery, often because they were unable to attend proceedings, only to be met with costs that can run into the thousands. The campaign to change this has been led in part by Sarah Olney, MP for Richmond Park, whose constituent, a victim of rape, was charged £7,500 for her transcript. The MP for Chichester thanked the Government for its support in the Sentencing Bill, which included an amendment to prov
Related Votes
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2
25 Mar 2026
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3
25 Mar 2026
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 4
25 Mar 2026
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5
25 Mar 2026
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6
25 Mar 2026
The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025
21 Jan 2026
Sentencing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 7
20 Jan 2026
Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
14 Jan 2026
Opposition Day: Jury trials
7 Jan 2026