Draft Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
369Ayes
102Noes
Carried · majority 267 · Government won179 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 369 · No 102 · DNV 179 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament approved a statutory instrument on 8 July 2026 that makes technical consequential amendments to existing education legislation, updating references and provisions across the statute book to align with the new legal framework for opening state-funded schools established by the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. The vote passed by 369 ayes to 102 noes, with the regulations having been laid before the House on 20 May 2026. The practical effect of these regulations is to ensure that legislation referring to the process for opening new schools is consistent with the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which ended the legal presumption that new state schools must be academies. The regulations also expand procedural powers around pupil referral units (PRUs), which are specialist settings for children who cannot attend mainstream school. The changes affect local authorities, voluntary organisations, academy trusts, and ultimately pupils and families, particularly those seeking places in alternative or specialist provision. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour MPs, including those listed under the Labour and Co-operative Party designation, voted unanimously in favour, as did the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the SDLP, and several smaller groupings. Conservatives voted 91 to 0 against, joined by the Democratic Unionist Party and two Reform UK MPs. There were no notable cross-party rebels. This vote is the latest in a series of divisions connected to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which has generated repeated parliamentary contests since April 2026, including several votes on Lords amendments.
Voting Aye meant
Support ending the automatic preference for academies when opening new schools, giving local authorities and voluntary organisations equal standing to propose new schools.
Voting No meant
Oppose rolling back the academy presumption, arguing academy freedoms have raised standards and that restricting them harms educational outcomes.
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
275
0
85
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
91
25
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
52
0
19
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
32
0
11
Independent
—
1
1
11
Reform UK
—
0
2
6
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
2
0
0
Your Party
—
2
0
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
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0