Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Govt Motion to insist on Amdt 38J and disagree with Amdts 38V to 38X
260Ayes
161Noes
Carried · majority 99 · Government won228 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 260 · No 161 · DNV 228 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 22 April 2026 on a government motion to insist on its own Amendment 38J and reject Lords amendments 38V to 38X, as part of the parliamentary ping-pong process on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Ping-pong is the process by which a bill passes back and forth between the Commons and the Lords as each chamber considers changes proposed by the other. The motion passed by 260 votes to 161. This was the third time the Commons had considered Lords amendments to the Bill. The vote covered three distinct policy areas: powers to restrict children's access to internet services via internet service providers, the circumstances in which a schools adjudicator can alter a school's published pupil admission numbers, and the statutory footing of a ban on mobile phones in schools. The government's Amendment 38J, which the Commons voted to insist upon, concerned the online access powers. Lords amendments 38V to 38X, which the Commons rejected, represented the upper chamber's preferred alternative approach to that provision. The Speaker noted that Lords amendment 38X engaged Commons financial privilege, meaning it would have had spending implications. Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of the government's motion, providing the bulk of the 260 ayes. Conservatives (91 noes), Liberal Democrats (52 noes), Plaid Cymru (4 noes), the DUP (2 noes), and the SDLP (2 noes) all voted against, siding with the Lords' amendments. The SNP's three present members voted with the government. The vote reflected a clear government-versus-opposition split, with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats backing the Lords' position and calling for more immediate and binding action on children's social media use, while the government maintained that its consultation-based approach was the appropriate route.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's version of the legislation (Amendment 38J) and reject the Lords' alternative changes (38V–38X)
Voting No meant
Prefer the Lords' amendments (38V–38X) over the government's amendment (38J), siding with the upper chamber's position
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
227
3
131
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
91
25
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
52
20
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
25
0
17
Independent
—
1
5
7
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
3
0
6
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
2
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Your Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Defends government's three-pronged approach: statutory phone ban in schools, broader consultation on social media/gaming harms rather than immediate ban, and amended safeguards for school admissions balancing quality with falling rolls.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,697 words) →
Welcomes statutory phone ban as a Conservative victory after government resistance, but criticizes government for refusing immediate social media ban and instead conducting consultation; demands explicit clarification that 'not seen, not heard' policies are prohibited.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,195 words) →
Supports statutory phone ban and welcomes broader consultation approach; emphasizes importance of getting social media regulation right through evidence-gathering on platforms' actual harms and careful consideration of exceptions for children with medical needs.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,483 words) →
Welcomes phone ban and admission safeguards but urges immediate concrete timeline and commitment to social media action; criticizes consultation framing as 'if' rather than 'how' and demands recognition of addictive design as distinct from harmful content.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,056 words) →
Supports statutory phone ban but argues 'not seen, not heard' approach is ineffective; calls for immediate social media ban without further consultation, noting other countries have already acted and that all complementary measures (gaming, chatbots) could be additive rather than alternatives.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,096 words) →
Criticizes government for 'kicking the can down the road' on social media; demands immediate legislative action today via Lords amendment rather than consultation, citing personal experience with grandchildren and peer pressure on phone ownership.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (570 words) →
Opposes school admissions changes as preventing good schools from expanding; argues government should enable growth of high-performing schools rather than limit them for bureaucratic convenience or ideological reasons during declining rolls.Conservative · Voted teller_no · Read full speech (754 words) →
Criticizes government for stripping out Lords safeguards; argues that vague language like 'have regard' to school quality/parental preference is weaker protection than the Lords' clear requirement that cuts be 'necessary and proportionate'.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (363 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0