Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5

Wednesday, 25 March 2026 · Division No. 465 · Commons

292Ayes

–

162Noes

Passed

199 MPs did not vote

Crime & Policing

proceduralGovernment wonVictims Rights(No)Tough On Sentencing(No)Lords Scrutiny(No)Criminal Justice Reform(No)

Voting Yes means

Support rejecting the Lords amendment on the basis that its drafting is legally flawed and would create uncertainty for victims, offenders and courts — while claiming to accept the underlying intention

Voting No means

Support keeping the Lords amendment to give victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences and improve transparency in the criminal justice system

What happened

On 25 March 2026, the House of Commons voted by 292 ayes to 162 noes to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 to the Victims and Courts Bill, sending it back to the upper chamber. The amendment had been added by the House of Lords to strengthen provisions for victims, but the government argued the change was not workable in its current form and should not be incorporated into the Bill at this stage.

Why it matters

Lords Amendment 5 was one of a series of amendments tabled in the upper chamber aimed at improving victims' rights and access to justice under the Bill. By rejecting it, the Commons preserved the Bill as the government prefers it, while leaving open the possibility of future changes through separate means. The vote was one of several on the same day, with the Commons also disagreeing with Lords Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 by similar margins. The broader Bill includes measures compelling offenders to attend their sentencing hearings, restricting the parental responsibility of serious offenders including child sex offenders, and improving communications with victims throughout the justice process.

The politics

The vote divided entirely along government and opposition lines. All 287 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government's rejection of the amendment, while Conservatives (85), Liberal Democrats (58), Greens (4), Plaid Cymru (3), the Democratic Unionist Party (3) and Reform UK (3) all voted to retain it. Two independents supported the government; five opposed it. The Bill now returns to the Lords, where the government has indicated it intends to bring forward its own revised provisions on several of the disputed issues, including court transcripts and time limits for families of homicide victims abroad.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye

265 Aye/0 No

Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No

0 Aye/85 No

Liberal DemocratsWhipped No

0 Aye/58 No

Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye

22 Aye/0 No

Independent

2 Aye/5 No

Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No

0 Aye/4 No

Reform UKWhipped No

0 Aye/3 No

Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No

0 Aye/3 No

Plaid CymruWhipped No

0 Aye/3 No

Your Party

0 Aye/1 No

What They Said in the Debate

Alex Davies-Jones

Labour · Pontypridd

Opposed

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

Steve Barclay

Conservative · North East Cambridgeshire

Opposed

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

Sarah Champion

Labour · Rotherham

Questioning

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

Lorraine Beavers

Labour · Blackpool North and Fleetwood

Neutral

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

Nick Timothy

Conservative · West Suffolk

Supportive

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

Ben Maguire

Liberal Democrat · North Cornwall

Supportive

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

Josh Reynolds

Labour · Maidenhead

Supportive

Supports Lords amendment 2 on victims code for overseas homicides; emphasises statutory protections needed because guidance alone is insufficient and inconsistently applied.

Voted No

Pam Cox

Labour · Colchester

Supportive

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'

Mirror7 AprHigh relevance

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

Sussex Express24 MarHigh relevance

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

Baroness Foster says dealing with glorification of terror now at 'forefront of discussion' after Lords back law change

Belfast News Letter19 MarHigh relevance

The former first minister achieved cross-party support for an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would make the act of glorification itself an offence, rather than authorities having to prove those involved intended to encourage people to commit terrorism. Unionist peers spoke in favour of the change, which received backing from Liberal Democrat, Conservative and cross bench members of the House of Lords. However, Home Office minister Lord Hanson of Flint said the Government could