{"impact":"helps","label":"Pro business","total":683,"skip":0,"limit":50,"divisions":[{"division_id":2407,"date":"2026-07-14","title":"Public Office (Accountability) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 3","aye_count":93,"no_count":323,"plain_explanation":"The Public Office (Accountability) Bill's Amendment 3 was rejected in the Report Stage, with 93 MPs voting in favour and 323 against, meaning the proposed accountability measures will not be added to the bill.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"The failed amendment means businesses will continue to operate under the existing regulatory environment, avoiding additional disclosure requirements that could have increased compliance costs.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"The amendment's failure preserves the status quo, benefiting business interests by avoiding extra scrutiny while leaving the public and workers without the proposed accountability improvements.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2404,"date":"2026-07-08","title":"Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions)  (England) Regulations 2026","aye_count":283,"no_count":182,"plain_explanation":"Parliament has approved the Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026, which alter how local planning authorities handle planning applications. The new rules allow certain planning decisions to be transferred or delegated to other bodies with the aim of speeding up the process and reducing bureaucracy. The vote passed with 283 ayes and 182 noes.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Businesses, especially developers, will benefit from faster planning decisions and reduced administrative delays, making it easier to get projects approved.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Developers and the construction industry win with faster approvals, while local communities and advocacy groups lose out on democratic input.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2402,"date":"2026-07-08","title":"Draft Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools)  (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026","aye_count":369,"no_count":102,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament has approved the Draft Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026, which will enable the creation of new schools and make the necessary legal changes to support the Act. The vote passed with a large majority (369‑102), signalling broad political agreement that expanding school capacity is vital for children’s welfare. These regulations set out the funding, governance and regulatory framework that new schools will need to follow.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"New school construction and the procurement of supplies and services will create contracts for construction firms, technology providers and other suppliers, boosting revenue in those sectors. At the same time, increased public spending could raise business costs if taxes rise to cover the investment.","working_class_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Children and families gain from greater school access, while taxpayers and some businesses bear the cost of funding the expansion.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2397,"date":"2026-07-01","title":"Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 2","aye_count":80,"no_count":281,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted down a new clause that would have introduced a new tax on high‑emission vehicles and used the revenue to reduce energy bills for low‑income households. The clause failed, so the tax change will not be implemented and the bill proceeds without it.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"The failed clause would have imposed a new levy on high‑emission commercial vehicles, so businesses that operate such fleets are unaffected by its removal, preserving their operational costs.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Low‑income households lose a potential financial break, while high‑emission vehicle operators avoid a new tax.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2394,"date":"2026-06-24","title":"Draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2026","aye_count":330,"no_count":93,"plain_explanation":"Parliament has approved the Draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2026, which raises the amount of carbon credits that can be used by businesses to meet the UK's carbon budgets. The vote was 330 in favour and 93 against, meaning the government’s plan to give companies more flexibility in meeting climate targets is now law. This change could affect the cost of carbon credits and the pace of emissions reductions.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Businesses will have more carbon credits to use, reducing the need for immediate costly emissions cuts and lowering compliance costs, especially for high‑emitting industries.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Workers get temporary job security but risk delayed green transition, businesses gain compliance relief, and the public faces potential long‑term climate trade‑offs.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2385,"date":"2026-06-22","title":"Armed Forces Bill Report Stage: New Clause 11","aye_count":104,"no_count":391,"plain_explanation":"MPs rejected New Clause 11 of the Armed Forces Bill, which would have introduced additional employment and family support measures for armed forces personnel. The amendment failed with 104 votes in favour and 391 against.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Without the new requirements, defence contractors and employers avoid extra costs associated with expanded benefits, preserving current profit margins.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Workers and families miss out on potential new protections, while businesses dodge additional regulatory costs.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2382,"date":"2026-06-17","title":"National Security (State Threats) Bill Committee: New Clause 3","aye_count":144,"no_count":244,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons Committee rejected New Clause 3, which would have added extra safeguards to the National Security (State Threats) Bill. The vote was 144 in favour and 244 against, so the clause will not be included in the bill.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"The clause could have imposed additional compliance requirements on businesses, and its rejection means businesses face fewer regulatory burdens under the bill.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"The government gains stronger security powers, while the public and vulnerable groups lose out on additional privacy protections.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2376,"date":"2026-06-16","title":"Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill Remaining Stages: Amendment 3","aye_count":162,"no_count":246,"plain_explanation":"Parliament rejected Amendment 3 to the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, which would have strengthened data breach notification requirements for businesses. The amendment failed by 162 votes to 246, meaning companies will continue operating under existing notification timelines rather than the proposed stricter 24-72 hour reporting window.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Businesses benefit from the failed amendment as they retain more flexibility in breach reporting timelines, reducing compliance costs and administrative burden for small and medium enterprises.","working_class_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Businesses win with reduced compliance pressure, while the public loses out on faster breach notifications that could have better protected their personal data.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2375,"date":"2026-06-16","title":"Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill Remaining Stages: New Clause 14","aye_count":151,"no_count":258,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons rejected New Clause 14 of the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, meaning the proposed additional safeguards for network and information systems will not be added to the legislation. The clause fell with 151 votes in favour and 258 against.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Businesses, especially those operating essential services, are spared the extra compliance and capital expenditure that the clause would have imposed, reducing their short‑term regulatory burden.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Businesses avoid extra costs while ordinary people and vulnerable groups lose out on stronger cyber protections.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2372,"date":"2026-06-10","title":"Railways Bill: Third Reading","aye_count":278,"no_count":149,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament has passed the Railways Bill, which amends the law to allow young persons to carry out voluntary work on heritage railways or tramways. The bill passed with a majority of 278 votes to 149, meaning it will become law. This change is intended to encourage youth involvement in preserving and operating historic rail and tram services.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Heritage railways and tramways will be able to draw on a pool of young volunteers, reducing labor costs and providing fresh enthusiasm that can enhance visitor experiences and operational capacity.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Young volunteers and heritage railway operators win, while paid railway workers may face increased competition for jobs.","bill_id":2044,"bill_short_title":"Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL]","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2371,"date":"2026-06-10","title":"Railways Bill Remaining Stages: Amendment 148","aye_count":155,"no_count":279,"plain_explanation":"The amendment would have required railway operators to pay all workers at least the real living wage and prohibited compulsory redundancies for two years. Since it failed, these protections are not included in the Railways Bill, leaving many railway workers vulnerable to lower pay and potential job cuts. The bill now proceeds without these worker safeguards.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Railway companies avoid the extra cost of paying the real living wage and can retain flexibility in workforce management, which can improve their bottom line.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers lose out on wage and job protections, while businesses gain from lower labor costs and flexibility.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2370,"date":"2026-06-10","title":"Railways Bill Remaining Stages: Amendment 143","aye_count":167,"no_count":266,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted on amendment 143 to the Railways Bill. The amendment was defeated, with 167 MPs supporting it and 266 opposing it, so it will not be added to the bill.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Businesses would have faced higher labour costs if the amendment passed, so the failed vote keeps costs lower for railway companies.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers and families lose out on potential benefits, while railway businesses avoid additional costs.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2369,"date":"2026-06-10","title":"Railways Bill Remaining Stages: New Clause 1","aye_count":77,"no_count":271,"plain_explanation":"MPs rejected a new clause that would have required the government to renationalise the railways and set minimum wage standards for rail workers. The vote was 77 in favour and 271 against, so the clause will not become law. As a result, the existing privatised rail system remains unchanged.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Private rail companies avoid the increased costs and regulatory requirements that would have come with renationalisation, preserving their profit margins.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers and families miss out on better wages and lower fares, while private rail operators keep their profits.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2367,"date":"2026-06-09","title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill Committee: New Clause 4","aye_count":157,"no_count":287,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted down a proposal to bring the steel industry into public ownership, with 287 MPs opposing the measure against 157 who supported it. This means the steel industry will remain under private ownership rather than being nationalised by the government.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Private steel companies benefit from avoiding state control and maintain freedom to operate commercially without government bureaucratic constraints.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Private steel companies and their shareholders win, while workers seeking guaranteed public sector jobs and communities hoping for government-backed industrial strategy lose.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2366,"date":"2026-06-09","title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill Committee: New Clause 12","aye_count":94,"no_count":297,"plain_explanation":"Parliament voted on a new clause that would have nationalised parts of the steel industry. The clause was rejected by a majority of 297 votes to 94, meaning the proposal will not become law. As a result, the steel sector will remain under private ownership for now.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Private steel companies avoid state control, allowing them to operate with more flexibility and retain profits without the obligations of a public ownership model.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Private steel owners win, while steel workers and their families lose.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2364,"date":"2026-06-08","title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill Committee: New Clause 8","aye_count":145,"no_count":251,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted on a proposal to add a new clause to a bill that would nationalise the steel industry, bringing it into public ownership. The majority of MPs (251) rejected this clause while 145 supported it, so the proposal failed to become law. This means the steel industry will remain in private hands rather than being taken over by the government.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Private steel companies and their shareholders benefit as they retain ownership and control of their assets. They can continue operating for profit without government intervention or requirements to prioritise workers over returns.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Private steel companies and their owners win, while steelworkers, their families, and communities seeking job security and public investment lose.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2363,"date":"2026-06-08","title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill Committee: New Clause 2","aye_count":65,"no_count":251,"plain_explanation":"Parliament voted on a new clause that would have nationalized the steel industry. The clause was rejected by 251 votes to 65, so the steel industry will remain in private ownership. This means the government will not take over the steel companies.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Private steel companies avoid government control and can continue to operate for profit. This allows them to maintain flexibility and potentially increase their competitiveness.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Private steel companies win, while workers and communities that could have benefited from nationalization lose.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2356,"date":"2026-05-21","title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading","aye_count":68,"no_count":242,"plain_explanation":"Parliament held a second reading vote on a Bill that would let the Secretary of State take over steel companies under certain conditions. The majority of MPs voted against the Bill, so it will not become law. As a result, the steel industry will remain in private ownership and the proposed nationalisation measures will not be implemented.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Private steel firms are spared from government takeover, allowing them to continue operating under market logic and retain profit‑making opportunities.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Private steel companies win, while workers and the public lose a chance for greater job security and strategic control.","bill_id":4123,"bill_short_title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2353,"date":"2026-05-20","title":"King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)","aye_count":78,"no_count":408,"plain_explanation":"Parliament voted on amendment (l) to the King's Speech, which proposed to raise the national minimum wage to a living wage. The amendment was rejected by a large margin, meaning the proposed wage increase will not be implemented. As a result, the current minimum wage levels remain unchanged.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"By rejecting the wage increase, businesses avoid the higher labor costs that the amendment would have imposed.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers miss out on a potential pay rise, while employers dodge increased wage bills.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2352,"date":"2026-05-20","title":"King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)","aye_count":104,"no_count":317,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament voted on an amendment to the King's Speech, which is the monarch's address outlining the government's agenda. The amendment, labeled (o), was proposed to add a specific policy proposal to the speech. However, the vote failed, with 104 MPs voting in favor and 317 against, meaning the amendment was not included in the final speech. As a result, the government's agenda as presented remains unchanged.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Businesses, especially in sectors reliant on low-wage labor, benefit from the absence of a binding promise to raise the minimum wage, as it avoids pressure on wage bills and preserves profit margins.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers lose out on a potential minimum wage increase, while businesses avoid the pressure of higher wages.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2342,"date":"2026-04-27","title":"English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 94B and 94C","aye_count":269,"no_count":170,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendments 94B and 94C to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. This means the bill proceeds without additional safeguards the Lords had proposed, likely related to audit requirements, tenant protections, or accountability measures for combined authorities.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"The bill's provisions on combined authorities and business tenancy terms give businesses more flexibility in negotiations with local councils and potentially more favorable rental arrangements.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Local authorities and businesses gain devolved flexibility while workers, tenants, and public service users lose potential protections the Lords had tried to add.","bill_id":4002,"bill_short_title":"English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2340,"date":"2026-04-27","title":"English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 89B and 89C","aye_count":273,"no_count":167,"plain_explanation":"The Commons voted to reject two Lords amendments that would have added extra safeguards on business tenancy rents and stronger local audit rules. By disagreeing, the Bill keeps its original approach, granting more powers to combined authorities and local councils while leaving rent terms largely to the market.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"By rejecting amendments that would have imposed stricter rent controls on business tenancies, the Bill preserves flexibility for landlords and businesses to set terms, encouraging investment.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Local authorities win more powers, while renters and small businesses lose potential protections.","bill_id":4002,"bill_short_title":"English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2328,"date":"2026-04-21","title":"English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 2","aye_count":293,"no_count":155,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 2 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, with 293 MPs voting against the amendment and 155 supporting it. This means the bill will proceed in its original Commons form without the specific changes the Lords had proposed. The amendment likely concerned provisions related to local authority governance structures or combined authority arrangements.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"The bill's provisions regarding local audit and business tenancy rent terms remain intact, providing clearer regulatory frameworks for businesses operating in areas covered by combined authorities.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Local authorities and combined authorities win with clearer governance frameworks, while specific community groups or advocacy organizations who pushed for the Lords amendment lose out.","bill_id":4002,"bill_short_title":"English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2304,"date":"2026-04-14","title":"Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 311","aye_count":300,"no_count":101,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons has voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 311, effectively rejecting the extra safeguards the Lords had added to the Crime and Policing Bill. The amendment would have limited police stop-and-search powers and required additional protections for tenants facing possession orders. With the motion passing 300-101, the Bill will now continue without those modifications.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"The Bill's measures to curb anti-social behaviour and simplify the process for landlords to recover possession are likely to benefit businesses and property owners by reducing crime and administrative delays.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers and tenants lose protections, while businesses and law-enforcement agencies gain stronger powers.","bill_id":1163,"bill_short_title":"Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act","mp_votes":[{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2301,"date":"2026-04-14","title":"Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6","aye_count":299,"no_count":169,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 6, meaning the amendment added by the Lords will not be included in the final Crime and Policing Bill. The motion passed with 299 ayes to 169 noes, so the Bill will proceed in its original form. This decision allows the government to keep the original provisions on anti-social behaviour, police powers, and housing possession without the additional safeguards the Lords had proposed.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"The Bill's stronger police powers and measures to curb anti-social behaviour are likely to create a safer environment for businesses, potentially reducing crime that disrupts commercial activities.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"The government and police gain stronger powers, while tenants and vulnerable individuals lose important housing protections.","bill_id":1163,"bill_short_title":"Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act","mp_votes":[{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2298,"date":"2026-03-25","title":"Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6","aye_count":290,"no_count":163,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment (number 6) to the Victims and Courts Bill. The amendment would have added extra duties for public bodies and possibly businesses to support victims. The vote passed with a majority of 290 to 163, meaning the amendment is not adopted and the Bill proceeds without those provisions.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"The Lords amendment could have required employers to provide paid leave for victims attending court or to share sensitive information with authorities, which would add compliance costs. Disagreeing means businesses are not burdened with these requirements.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Victims and working‑class individuals lose out on stronger protections, while businesses avoid extra compliance costs.","bill_id":3968,"bill_short_title":"Victims and Courts Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2283,"date":"2026-03-18","title":"Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment)  Regulations 2026","aye_count":277,"no_count":99,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament has passed the Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which changes the tuition fee caps for universities in England. The amendment raises the maximum fees for high‑cost courses and introduces a new fee limit condition for postgraduate study, with 277 MPs voting in favour and 99 against.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Universities and higher education providers will be able to charge higher fees for certain courses, generating additional revenue to invest in facilities and staff.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Working‑class students lose out due to higher fees, while universities gain financial flexibility.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2282,"date":"2026-03-18","title":" Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments)  Regulations 2026","aye_count":368,"no_count":107,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament has approved the Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026, which update employment law to reflect new investigatory powers granted to authorities. The regulations make minor adjustments to existing employment rights to ensure they align with updated surveillance and data retention measures, and they passed with a strong majority.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"By clarifying how employment rights interact with investigatory powers, the regulations reduce legal ambiguity and help businesses comply with both employment and surveillance law, potentially lowering risk of costly legal challenges.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Workers gain stronger privacy safeguards but face tighter monitoring rules, while businesses benefit from clearer compliance pathways.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2280,"date":"2026-03-11","title":"Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 6","aye_count":175,"no_count":292,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted on Amendment 6 to the Finance (No. 2) Bill at its Report Stage. The amendment sought to introduce a new levy on large businesses to fund the NHS and other public services, but it was defeated, with 175 votes in favour and 292 against. This means the proposed levy will not be included in the bill.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"By rejecting the new levy, large businesses will avoid an additional cost, preserving their profitability.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers lose out on potential public service improvements, while businesses avoid a new levy.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2279,"date":"2026-03-11","title":"Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 5","aye_count":172,"no_count":283,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted down amendment 5 to the Finance (No. 2) Bill at report stage, meaning the proposed change will not become law. The bill proceeds in its original form, so no new taxes or spending measures from that amendment are enacted. The vote shows the House rejected the specific tweak to the finance legislation.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Because the amendment would have added new levies on businesses, its rejection keeps business costs lower than they would have been under the proposed change.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers lose out on potential new support while businesses avoid additional levies.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2263,"date":"2026-02-23","title":"Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee: New Clause 3","aye_count":77,"no_count":280,"plain_explanation":"Parliament rejected a new clause that would have added extra conditions to the government's financial support for industry and exports. The vote fell 77‑280, so the original bill proceeds without those amendments.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Without the extra requirements, companies receiving export and industry funding can allocate the money with fewer strings, lowering compliance costs.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Businesses gain more flexibility while workers and the public lose potential protections.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2262,"date":"2026-02-23","title":"Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee: New Clause 2","aye_count":156,"no_count":273,"plain_explanation":"MPs rejected a new clause that would have required the Government to attach labour and social conditions to financial support for industry and exports. The vote failed, so the Bill will proceed without those extra safeguards.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"By rejecting the clause, businesses retain greater flexibility to receive financial assistance without additional labour conditions or cost obligations.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Workers and public lose a potential protective layer, while businesses gain more freedom in receiving financial assistance.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2255,"date":"2026-02-11","title":"Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026","aye_count":362,"no_count":107,"plain_explanation":"Parliament approved extending the UK’s carbon‑trading scheme to cover ships and other maritime activities, meaning shipping firms must now buy permits for their greenhouse‑gas emissions. The aim is to cut emissions from the sector and align the UK with international climate goals.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"While traditional shipping companies face higher compliance costs, firms that develop low‑carbon fuels, retrofit vessels, or provide emissions‑monitoring services stand to gain from new market demand.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Shipping firms and heavy‑emitter maritime businesses lose out on short‑term profits, while green‑tech providers and the broader public gain from cleaner air and climate protection.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2251,"date":"2026-01-28","title":"Opposition Day: British Indian Ocean Territory","aye_count":103,"no_count":284,"plain_explanation":"The opposition brought a motion to address the rights and compensation of the Chagossian people in the British Indian Ocean Territory, but the majority of MPs voted against it, so the motion was rejected.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"The failed motion ensures the US military base on Diego Garcia remains operational, preserving defense contracts and support services.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"The motion's failure lets the government and defense interests maintain the status quo, while the Chagossian community loses the opportunity for compensation and return.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2250,"date":"2026-01-28","title":"Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026","aye_count":294,"no_count":108,"plain_explanation":"Parliament has approved the Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026, which update the fees that manufacturers pay for licensing, conformity assessment and registration of medical devices. The change is intended to allow the regulator (MHRA) to recover its costs and improve oversight, and it passed with a majority of 186 votes.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"The regulation provides a clearer, updated fee structure that helps businesses plan and ensures the regulatory process is sustainably funded, which can boost confidence in the market.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Manufacturers and regulators gain from a stable fee framework, while patients and the NHS may face higher costs and potential pressures on healthcare budgets.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2244,"date":"2026-01-21","title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill Committee: New Clause 5","aye_count":195,"no_count":317,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons Committee voted down a new clause that would have changed the way employer pension contributions are subject to National Insurance. With 195 MPs in favour and 317 against, the clause was rejected, meaning the original Bill provisions remain unchanged.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"By rejecting the clause, businesses avoid additional NICs on pension contributions, preserving their costs and potentially safeguarding employment.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers lose out on potential pension improvements, while businesses dodge extra costs.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2242,"date":"2026-01-20","title":"Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6","aye_count":347,"no_count":184,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 6, meaning the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill will proceed without the extra protections or changes the Lords had proposed. In effect, the amendment that would have added compensation, resettlement rights, or environmental safeguards for the Chagossian community is rejected.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Rejecting the amendment avoids new regulatory requirements on the Diego Garcia base, keeping the operational environment streamlined for the US/UK defense contractors and the military presence.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"The vote benefits defense and strategic interests while disadvantaging the Chagossian community and ignoring environmental safeguards.","bill_id":4004,"bill_short_title":"Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2241,"date":"2026-01-20","title":"Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5","aye_count":347,"no_count":185,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament voted to reject a modification proposed by the House of Lords to the bill implementing the Chagos Archipelago agreement with Mauritius. With 347 MPs supporting the government's position against 185 who wanted to accept the Lords' change, the agreement to transfer certain sovereignty arrangements proceeds largely as negotiated. This keeps the Diego Garcia military base arrangement intact while resolving a long-running territorial dispute.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Maintaining the Diego Garcia base supports US-UK defense industry contracts and ensures continued stability for maritime operations and counter-piracy efforts in the Indian Ocean region.","working_class_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"The UK government and US military alliance win by keeping the Diego Garcia arrangement intact, while Chagossians who were displaced from the territory see limited gains from this particular vote.","bill_id":4004,"bill_short_title":"Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2238,"date":"2026-01-14","title":"Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025","aye_count":301,"no_count":110,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted to approve the Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025, which create new criminal offences for deliberately disrupting or sabotaging essential services such as power grids, transport hubs and communications networks. The regulations give law‑enforcement agencies stronger powers to arrest and prosecute anyone who interferes with these assets. The motion passed by 301 votes to 110.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Businesses benefit from a more secure operating environment, as disruptions to critical infrastructure can cause costly supply‑chain interruptions and downtime.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"The government, security forces and infrastructure operators win with stronger safeguards, while protest movements and some labour activists lose out.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2232,"date":"2026-01-13","title":"Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Clause 63 Stand part","aye_count":348,"no_count":167,"plain_explanation":"The Commons Committee voted to keep Clause 63 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which creates a new tax credit for companies that invest in research and development. The clause was approved by 348 MPs against 167, meaning it will become law as part of the Bill.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Firms undertaking R&D will see a lower tax liability, improving their cash flow and encouraging more investment in innovation.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Workers and low‑income households may lose out from reduced public services while businesses gain from lower taxes and increased R&D incentives.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2230,"date":"2026-01-12","title":"Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Amendment 3","aye_count":185,"no_count":344,"plain_explanation":"The Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee voted on Amendment 3, which sought to modify the bill's tax or spending provisions. The amendment was rejected, with 185 MPs voting in favour and 344 voting against, so it failed to pass.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"By rejecting the amendment, businesses avoid higher taxes that would have been imposed under the proposed change, preserving their bottom line.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Businesses and high-income earners win by avoiding higher taxes, while workers and public services lose out on potential funding.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2229,"date":"2026-01-12","title":"Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Clause 62 stand part","aye_count":344,"no_count":181,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to approve Clause 62 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which contains a set of tax adjustments for businesses and individuals. The clause was passed by 344 MPs to 181.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"It provides tax relief for businesses, reducing their cost of doing business.","working_class_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Businesses gain from tax relief, while workers see little immediate benefit.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2223,"date":"2025-12-16","title":"Finance (No. 2) Bill: Second Reading","aye_count":341,"no_count":195,"plain_explanation":"The Finance (No. 2) Bill passed its Second Reading in the UK Parliament with 341 votes in favor and 195 against. This bill is a key financial legislation that typically contains tax changes, duty adjustments, and provisions affecting public revenue. The government successfully secured parliamentary approval to proceed with this bill to its next stage of detailed committee examination.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Finance Bills typically include corporation tax provisions, business relief measures, and investment incentives that generally favor commercial interests and economic growth objectives.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Businesses and higher earners typically benefit most from Finance Bills while working families face mixed outcomes depending on specific tax and benefit provisions.","bill_id":683,"bill_short_title":"Finance (No. 2) Act 2010","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2219,"date":"2025-12-10","title":"Government Amendment to Opposition day debate on seasonal work","aye_count":320,"no_count":98,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament voted to pass a government amendment during an opposition-led debate about seasonal work. The government secured the vote with 320 MPs supporting the amendment against 98 who opposed it, indicating parliamentary backing for the proposed changes to seasonal work regulations.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Farming and hospitality businesses that depend on seasonal labour likely benefit from clearer regulations and potentially more flexible visa arrangements to fill labour shortages during peak seasons.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Seasonal workers and businesses in agriculture/hospitality win from clearer rules, while critics of immigration policy may feel the government is not going far enough to restrict foreign labour.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2218,"date":"2025-12-10","title":"Opposition day: Seasonal work","aye_count":98,"no_count":325,"plain_explanation":"The opposition used their allocated opposition day to bring forward a motion that sought to enhance protections for seasonal workers, such as guaranteeing the national minimum wage and improving housing standards. The motion was rejected by a large majority, with only 98 MPs voting in favor and 325 against, meaning the proposed measures will not become law.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Employers in sectors that rely on seasonal labor, such as farming, can continue to hire workers without facing the additional costs and regulatory requirements that the motion would have introduced.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers miss out on potential safeguards, while businesses keep the existing flexible and low-cost seasonal workforce.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2217,"date":"2025-12-09","title":"Railways Bill: Second Reading","aye_count":329,"no_count":173,"plain_explanation":"MPs have approved the Railways Bill at its second reading, which will allow young persons to volunteer on heritage railways and tramways. The bill passed with 329 votes to 173, reflecting support for heritage railways but also concerns about youth labor practices.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Heritage railways and tramways will benefit from a larger pool of volunteers, reducing their reliance on paid staff and lowering operating costs. This can help preserve these attractions, but may also encourage reliance on unpaid labor.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Young volunteers gain experience, heritage railways get cheap labor, but workers risk losing paid jobs.","bill_id":2044,"bill_short_title":"Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL]","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2210,"date":"2025-12-08","title":"Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to insist on disagreement to Lords Amendment 1B but to propose Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords Amendment 1B","aye_count":327,"no_count":96,"plain_explanation":"The government successfully passed its own version of the Employment Rights Bill, rejecting a Lords amendment that would have strengthened worker protections and replacing it with its own amendments. This means the final law may provide fewer safeguards for workers against dismissal and re-engagement on inferior terms. The vote was decisive, with the government winning 327 votes to 96.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"The government's amendments give employers more flexibility to restructure employment terms and reduce redundancy costs, benefiting businesses.","working_class_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers lose protections while businesses gain flexibility.","bill_id":2896,"bill_short_title":"Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2204,"date":"2025-12-02","title":"Budget Resolution No. 51: Inheritance tax (pension interests)","aye_count":364,"no_count":167,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament approved a change to inheritance tax rules for pension interests, meaning that the value of a person's pension pot will be taxed differently when they die. This could reduce the amount of tax owed on inherited pension savings.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Reducing inheritance tax on pensions makes pension savings more attractive, which could increase demand for pension products and benefit providers.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Pension savers and their heirs gain from lower inheritance tax, while the government loses out on some revenue.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2202,"date":"2025-12-02","title":"Budget Resolution No. 28: Capital gains tax (employee-ownership trusts)","aye_count":362,"no_count":164,"plain_explanation":"Parliament approved a change to capital gains tax rules that make it cheaper for business owners to transfer shares to employee‑ownership trusts, aiming to encourage more employee‑owned companies.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Owners selling their business to an employee trust will pay less capital gains tax, making succession easier and potentially preserving jobs.","working_class_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Employees seeking ownership win, while the Treasury loses some tax revenue.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2189,"date":"2025-11-19","title":"Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025","aye_count":376,"no_count":16,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament passed the Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025, updating the technical and safety standards for radio equipment sold in Northern Ireland to align with recent EU requirements and ensure market consistency after Brexit. The vote was overwhelmingly in favour, with 376 MPs supporting the measure and only 16 opposed.","business_impact":"helps","business_reason":"Businesses that manufacture or sell radio equipment will benefit from clearer standards, reduced risk of non‑compliance, and improved market access, especially for exports to the EU.","working_class_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Consumers and compliant businesses win with better equipment and clearer rules, while non‑compliant manufacturers may lose out.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]}]}