Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 4
300Ayes
149Noes
Carried · majority 151 · Government won200 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 300 · No 149 · DNV 200 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The Commons voted on 25 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 4 to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would have removed Clause 12 from the legislation. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 300 votes to 149. Clause 12 gives the Lord Chancellor the power to set, through secondary legislation, the rates at which private prosecutors can recover their expenses from central funds (public money held by the courts). The vote preserves the government's ability to control how much private prosecutors can claim back from public funds when they bring criminal cases. Supporters of keeping Clause 12 argued that the current arrangements create inequity in the justice system, because private prosecutors can recover costs at rates that far exceed what is paid to legally-aided defence lawyers. Opponents argued that removing this power undermines access to justice and that the Lords were right to delete the clause. The Speaker's office noted the amendment engaged the Commons' financial privilege, a convention by which the elected House asserts authority over matters affecting public expenditure. The vote divided entirely along government and opposition lines. All 264 Labour MPs and 21 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government's position. The Conservatives (86 votes), Liberal Democrats (58 votes), and the Democratic Unionist Party (3 votes) all voted against. Reform UK provided 2 No votes. The Greens (4), Plaid Cymru (3), and most independents voted with the government. This division was one of six held on the same day rejecting Lords amendments to the Bill, all of which the government won by similar margins.
Voting Aye meant
Support keeping the Lord Chancellor's power to cap private prosecution cost recovery from central funds, arguing it is needed to prevent inequity in the justice system and control public expenditure.
Voting No meant
Oppose removing the Lords amendment, arguing that Clause 12 undermines access to justice and that the Lords were right to delete it from the Bill.
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
264
0
97
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
86
30
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
57
14
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
21
0
21
Independent
—
6
3
4
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
2
6
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
1
0
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