A divisionDivision No. 462 · Wednesday, 25 March 2026· Commons· Crime & Policing

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

295Ayes
162Noes
Carried · majority 133 · Government won
192 did not vote
Aye295No163DID NOT VOTE · 192

649 Members · Aye 295 · No 162 · DNV 192 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

MPs voted on 25 March 2026 to reject a House of Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have required the government to publish a dedicated appendix to the Victims' Code setting out rights and support for families of British nationals murdered, killed by manslaughter, or victims of infanticide abroad. The motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2 passed by 295 votes to 162, removing the amendment from the Bill. The vote determines whether families bereaved by the killing of a British national overseas will receive statutory rights under the Victims' Code equivalent to those available when a death occurs on UK soil. Supporters of the Lords amendment argued that roughly 80 families each year receive news of a relative murdered abroad and currently lack the structured statutory support available domestically. The government's position was that guidance published in January 2026, alongside clarifying documentation setting out the roles of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the National Police Chiefs' Council, the Ministry of Justice, and the coroner service, was sufficient and that a statutory appendix was not necessary. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 292 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government's motion to reject the Lords amendment, while Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Reform UK, Green, Plaid Cymru, and Democratic Unionist Party MPs who voted all opposed it. Among independents, three voted with the government and four voted against. This division was one of six held on the same day, each rejecting Lords amendments to the Bill, with results ranging from 286 to 300 on the government's side across the six votes.

Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting the government's position that existing guidance and online documentation is sufficient to support families of British nationals killed abroad, without a statutory victims code appendix.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment requiring a formal statutory appendix to the Victims' Code for families of British nationals murdered or killed abroad, giving them equal rights to those whose relatives die on UK soil.
§ 01Who voted how.457 voting Members · 192 absent

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
269
0
92
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
86
30
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
57
14
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
23
0
19
Independent
3
5
5
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
4
4
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
Whipped No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
0
1
1
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

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Alex Davies-JonesOpposedPontypridd
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)
Nick TimothySupportiveWest 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.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,700 words)
Sarah ChampionQuestioningRotherham
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)
Steve BarclayOpposedNorth 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.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,122 words)
Ben MaguireSupportiveNorth Cornwall
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)
Josh ReynoldsSupportiveMaidenhead
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)
Lorraine BeaversNeutralBlackpool 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.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (816 words)
Pam CoxSupportiveColchester
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0