Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2

What happened

On 25 March 2026, the House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 2 to the Victims and Courts Bill. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 295 votes to 162. Lords Amendment 2 had been tabled in the upper chamber and concerned how the victims code would apply to families of British nationals killed abroad through murder, manslaughter or infanticide. The Commons vote was one of six divisions held on the same day in which the government successfully overturned a series of Lords changes to the bill.

Why it matters

Lords Amendment 2 would have required the Secretary of State to issue an appendix to the victims code setting out how that code applies to the families of British nationals who are victims of homicide committed abroad. The government argued that the amendment was unnecessary because provisions for bereaved families in such cases were already being incorporated into a revised draft of the victims code, which was open for public consultation until 30 April. By rejecting the amendment, the Commons left this protection to be delivered through a non-statutory code consultation rather than a binding legislative requirement. The families of Britons killed overseas, who have often struggled to access the same support and information as victims of domestic crimes, remain directly affected by this question.

The politics

The vote divided along clear party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs provided all 295 votes in favour of rejecting the amendment, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party and several independents combined to supply the 162 votes against. There were no notable cross-party rebels on the government side. The division was part of a broader set of six government wins on the same day, with the government consistently defeating Lords changes by margins ranging from roughly 120 to 150 votes. The Conservative shadow Secretary of State criticised the government's approach as contradictory, arguing that the government simultaneously claimed its existing provisions were sufficient while also promising to go further in future. The Liberal Democrat spokesman welcomed the government's stated intentions but signalled his party would hold ministers to account for delivering the promised reforms.