Armed Forces Bill Committee: New Clause 6
99Ayes
371Noes
Defeated · majority 272 · Government won176 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 99 · No 371 · DNV 176 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 2 June 2026 on New Clause 6 to the Armed Forces Bill, a Conservative-proposed measure that would have required special educational needs plans for children of military families to be automatically transferred when a service parent is posted to a new location. The clause, tabled in the name of Mark Francois and colleagues, would have directed the Secretary of State to make regulations within six months of the Act's passage ensuring that plans such as Education and Health Care Plans in England, Individual Development Plans in Wales, Co-ordinated Support Plans in Scotland, and Statements of Special Educational Needs in Northern Ireland follow the child to their new local authority without the family having to restart the process. The vote was defeated by 371 noes to 99 ayes. The practical effect of the new clause, had it passed, would have been to create a statutory right protecting service children with SEN support from losing that provision each time their family moves as a result of a posting. Military families move frequently and across all four nations of the UK, meaning children with SEN support can face repeated reassessments and gaps in provision at new locations, a burden that families in civilian life do not typically face on the same scale. By defeating the clause, Parliament left the current administrative arrangements in place, with the government arguing it prefers practical cross-departmental improvements over a new legal duty. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 87 Conservative MPs who voted supported the new clause, as did 5 Democratic Unionist Party members, 3 Reform UK members, and 2 independents. Every Labour, Labour and Co-operative, Liberal Democrat, Green, Plaid Cymru, and Your Party MP who voted opposed it. There were no recorded Conservative votes against. The result reflects a wider pattern of opposition votes on Conservative amendments throughout the Armed Forces Bill committee stage on the same day, with related divisions on new clauses 2, 5, and 13 producing similar outcomes.
Voting Aye meant
Support legislating directly to protect armed forces families, including automatic transfer of special educational needs plans across UK nations when personnel are posted, and faster reserve mobilisation timelines — pushing the government to go further through statute rather than administrative action.
Voting No meant
Oppose imposing rigid statutory requirements on the government, preferring practical and flexible implementation of support for service families and reserves — arguing these issues are better addressed through policy rather than primary legislation.
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 No
0
271
89
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted Aye
87
0
29
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
56
15
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted No
0
29
13
Independent
—
2
5
6
Reform UK
Voted Aye
3
0
5
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Voted Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Voted No
0
5
0
Plaid Cymru
Voted No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · party line inferred from voting cohesion, not a published whip; “Split” = a close within-party division
Minister defending government amendments to expand covenant duty to regional authorities, modernise defence housing with 40,000 upgrades, and strengthen service justice protections including mandatory referral of sexual offences to civilian police.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (16,318 words) →
Intervened on lack of Reform MP attendance at material defence legislation, criticising 'plastic patriots' unwilling to show up for armed forces matters.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (12,648 words) →
Questioned why Northern Ireland district councils were excluded from covenant duty scope when all other local authorities across UK were included, pressing Minister on inconsistency.DUP · Voted aye · Read full speech (194 words) →
Supported government housing investment for veterans and emphasised importance of mental health support alongside housing provision, citing personal experience with homeless veterans.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (278 words) →
Praised East Sussex Veterans' Hub grant and innovative mental health support programmes, inviting Minister to visit constituency initiatives.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (344 words) →
Cautioned against portraying all veterans as homeless or mentally unwell, emphasising majority of personnel transition well to civilian life and that negative narratives deter recruitment.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,110 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0