Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3
286Ayes
163Noes
Carried · majority 123 · Government won198 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 286 · No 163 · DNV 198 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 25 March 2026, MPs voted 286 to 163 to reject Lords Amendment 3 to the Victims and Courts Bill. The amendment, alongside the related Lords Amendment 1, would have given victims of crime a legal right to receive free transcripts of court proceedings, including routes to verdict and bail decisions, within 14 days of requesting them. The government's motion to disagree with the Lords passed, meaning the amendment did not become law. The vote has immediate consequences for victims seeking to understand court decisions that directly affect them. Under existing rules, victims already have a right to be informed of bail outcomes within five working days, which the government argued is shorter than the 14-day window the Lords proposed. Ministers said their priority is first to deliver free sentencing remarks to all victims, and that extending this entitlement further is not currently operationally feasible. Supporters of the Lords amendment argued that a legal right to free transcripts is a matter of basic transparency and dignity for victims, many of whom cannot attend proceedings or need time to process what happened in court. Labour MPs voted unanimously in favour of the government's position, providing the majority. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted entirely against, with Greens, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party, and Reform UK also voting no. No significant cross-party rebellions were recorded on the government side. The vote was one of six motions to disagree with Lords amendments decided on the same day, all of which the government won by similar margins.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's decision to reject the Lords amendment, arguing that delivering free sentencing remarks for all victims should come first and that the 14-day transcript entitlement is not currently deliverable by courts.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment giving victims a legal right to free court transcripts within 14 days, arguing it is essential for transparency, victim dignity, and accountability in the criminal justice system.
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
263
0
98
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
87
29
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
58
13
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
21
0
21
Independent
—
3
6
4
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
3
5
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
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