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
On 22 April 2026, the House of Commons voted 260 to 161 to insist on the government's Amendment 38J and reject Lords Amendments 38V to 38X in the ping-pong stage of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, a process in which the two chambers exchange proposed changes until they reach agreement. The motion passed, meaning the Commons sided with the government's preferred wording rather than the Lords' alternative. The vote was one of several taken that day as Parliament worked to finalise the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, described by the Schools Minister Olivia Bailey as "the biggest single piece of child protection legislation in a generation." The Hansard record for this specific division does not set out in full detail what Amendments 38J and 38V to 38X each contain, so the precise policy substance of these particular amendments is not clear from the available record. The broader debate that day covered school admissions powers, mobile phone bans in schools, and powers requiring internet service providers to restrict children's access to online services, and the Speaker noted that Lords Amendment 38X engaged Commons financial privilege. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs supplied 252 of the 260 Aye votes, with five Green Party MPs and three SNP MPs also voting in favour. All 91 voting Conservatives, all 52 voting Liberal Democrats, and smaller parties including Plaid Cymru, the DUP, and the SDLP voted No. Three Labour MPs voted against the government. The result reflects the government's determination to bring the Bill to a conclusion after a lengthy passage, with Minister Bailey telling the House that "this Bill has been languishing for 15 months" and urging MPs to "stop playing political games and get this Bill on the statute book."
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's compromise approach on school admissions, statutory phone bans in schools, and powers to restrict children's access to harmful online content, allowing the Bill to pass into law
Voting No meant
Prefer the Lords' original amendments, particularly pushing for stronger or more immediate action — such as a hard age limit on social media access — rather than the government's consultation-led approach
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 party-line column is inferred from how cohesively each party voted, not a published whip: a clear one-way majority of a party’s voters reads as a line, a close division reads as “Split”.
Party
Party line
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Voted Aye
227
3
131
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
91
25
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
51
20
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted Aye
25
0
17
Independent
—
1
6
6
Scottish National Party
Voted 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
Voted Aye
5
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Voted No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
2
0
Your Party
—
0
0
2
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
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · party line inferred from voting cohesion, not a published whip; “Split” = a close within-party division
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