{"impact":"hurts","label":"Harms / fails to protect women and children","total":632,"skip":0,"limit":50,"divisions":[{"division_id":2398,"date":"2026-07-01","title":"Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 4","aye_count":173,"no_count":282,"plain_explanation":"Parliament voted down New Clause 4 of the Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill, which would have introduced tax relief for low-income households on energy bills and vehicle excise duties. The clause was rejected by 282 votes to 173, meaning the proposed changes will not become law. As a result, existing tax arrangements for energy and vehicles remain unchanged.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Families, especially those with children, will not see the promised reductions in energy bills and vehicle taxes, potentially exacerbating financial hardship.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Workers and families lose out on potential tax breaks, while businesses miss chances for green incentives.","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":"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}]},{"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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Families with children could have benefited from lower energy bills, but the clause’s defeat means they continue to face existing high energy costs, while some safety‑related vehicle standards may not improve.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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":2387,"date":"2026-06-22","title":"Armed Forces Bill Report Stage: Amendment 11","aye_count":171,"no_count":322,"plain_explanation":"The amendment was defeated; a majority of MPs voted against it, so it will not be added to the Armed Forces Bill.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The amendment would have strengthened welfare provisions for families of armed forces personnel, including childcare and domestic violence protections; its failure means these protections are not improved.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Workers and families lose out on potential benefits, while the government and defense establishment see no change.","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":2386,"date":"2026-06-22","title":"Armed Forces Bill Report Stage: New Clause 22","aye_count":74,"no_count":323,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted on a new clause to the Armed Forces Bill that would have required the government to provide priority NHS treatment for veterans and their families. The majority of MPs voted against the clause, so it will not become law. The government opposed the measure citing cost concerns.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The clause would have extended support services for families of service personnel, such as childcare and education assistance; its failure means families continue to lack dedicated support.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Veterans and their families lose out on priority healthcare and housing support, while the government avoids additional spending.","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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The clause might have included safeguards for women and children, such as privacy protections or restrictions on surveillance, and its failure leaves them less protected.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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":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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Women and children depend heavily on secure health, education and social services that rely on network infrastructure; without the extra safeguards, those services remain more vulnerable to cyber‑attacks.","working_class_impact":"mixed","business_impact":"helps","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":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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The amendment could have mandated higher safety standards and better access for families, so its defeat leaves those improvements unrealized.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The clause would have introduced subsidies for families and children, such as free travel for under‑16s, which will not be implemented, leaving families to continue paying high fares.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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":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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Families dependent on steel industry wages may suffer from ongoing job insecurity and lower incomes, affecting household stability and access to services.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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":2361,"date":"2026-06-03","title":"Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026","aye_count":302,"no_count":155,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament has approved the Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026, which cuts the delinked payments – subsidies paid to farmers independent of production – for English agriculture. The regulation was passed with 302 votes in favour and 153 against, meaning the government will reduce these payments, lowering financial support for farmers.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Lower farm incomes can reduce household earnings for farming families, affecting children's welfare and limiting resources for women in rural communities.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Farmers and rural workers lose out, while taxpayers and other sectors benefit from reduced subsidy spending.","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}]},{"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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The amendment would have introduced additional support and protections for women, children, and families, but its defeat means those measures are not enacted, leaving existing gaps in safety and welfare unaddressed.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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":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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"By rejecting the Lords amendment, the Bill retains its original wording without additional safeguards specifically aimed at protecting women and children. This omission may reduce targeted support services and limit measures that enhance family safety and welfare.","working_class_impact":"mixed","business_impact":"helps","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":2319,"date":"2026-04-15","title":"Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 78","aye_count":277,"no_count":150,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons has voted to disagree with the Lords' amendment, meaning the original Pension Schemes Bill proceeds. This Bill obliges the Government to produce a report on whether war pension and armed forces compensation should be ignored when calculating means‑tested benefits such as Pension Credit. The vote does not change benefits now, but could lead to future improvements for veterans.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Military families, particularly widows and dependents of veterans, often rely on means-tested benefits. Disagreeing with Lords Amendment 78 means compensation from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme will continue to count against eligibility for these benefits, potentially reducing financial support for military families including women and children who depend on Pension Credit and related benefits.","working_class_impact":"mixed","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Veterans could win if the report leads to benefit gains; the Treasury could lose if costs rise.","bill_id":4074,"bill_short_title":"Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2317,"date":"2026-04-15","title":"Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 43","aye_count":273,"no_count":159,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have changed how war and armed forces compensation is treated for means‑tested benefits. The original bill only asks the government to study the issue rather than immediately change the rules. By disagreeing, the Commons ensures that compensation payments continue to be counted as income, which could reduce eligibility for Pension Credit and other means‑tested benefits.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Disagreeing with Lords Amendment 43 means compensation from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme will continue to be counted against means-tested benefits like Pension Credit, which disproportionately affects widows and families of service personnel who rely on these benefits for financial stability.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Veterans and low‑income claimants lose out on benefits, while the government retains savings.","bill_id":4074,"bill_short_title":"Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Lee Anderson","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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Disagreeing with Lords Amendment 311 removes a provision that would have strengthened safeguards for women and children, especially those at risk of forced marriage or domestic abuse, thereby reducing the safety and welfare of families.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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":2303,"date":"2026-04-14","title":"Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 11","aye_count":291,"no_count":174,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 11 to the Crime and Policing Bill. The motion passed 291‑174, meaning the amendment will not be added and the bill proceeds with its original provisions covering anti‑social behaviour, policing, firearms, forced marriage, court fees and other measures.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Disagreeing with Lords Amendment 11 removes a provision that would have strengthened protections for women and children against forced marriage and domestic abuse, thereby reducing safety and welfare for these groups.","working_class_impact":"mixed","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Working‑class renters and low‑income individuals lose out due to higher court fees and easier evictions, while police and victims of crime or forced marriage gain from 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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 removes a provision that was intended to strengthen protections for women and children, particularly regarding forced marriage and domestic abuse, which could increase risk to these groups.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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":2300,"date":"2026-04-14","title":"Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2","aye_count":307,"no_count":176,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, meaning the amendment will not become law. The Government argues the original bill strikes the right balance between tough policing and protecting victims, while critics say the amendment would have added vital safeguards. The vote clears the way for the bill to proceed with its existing provisions.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Rejecting the Lords amendment removes safeguards aimed at protecting women, children and families from forced marriage and other abuses, likely increasing their vulnerability and reducing available support.","working_class_impact":"mixed","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Workers and vulnerable communities lose out on stronger safeguards, while law enforcement and business gain expanded 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":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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 means the Bill will not include provisions that were intended to enhance protections for women, children, and families, which could leave them less supported in the criminal justice process.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The amendment may lead to increased higher education fees, placing a greater financial burden on families, particularly those with limited resources, which could negatively impact the welfare and safety of women and children.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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":2274,"date":"2026-03-09","title":"Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 102","aye_count":315,"no_count":163,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 102, rejecting the change the Lords made to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. This means the amendment is not incorporated and the bill will proceed as the Commons version. The vote passed with 315 ayes to 163 noes.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"By rejecting the Lords amendment, the Commons removes a provision that would have strengthened child safeguarding or support services, negatively affecting the safety and welfare of children and families.","working_class_impact":"helps","business_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Working‑class families and children gain more support, while private school operators face stricter regulation.","bill_id":3909,"bill_short_title":"Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2272,"date":"2026-03-09","title":"Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 41","aye_count":316,"no_count":171,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 41 to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The motion passed with 316 votes in favour and 171 against, meaning the Commons rejected the Lords' proposed change. This sets up potential further negotiations between the two Houses on the specific provision contained in Amendment 41.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 41 rejects a provision that would have enhanced safeguarding, welfare, and support services for children and families, potentially leaving vulnerable women and children with less protection.","working_class_impact":"mixed","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Children and families win improved school welfare provisions, while the government maintains control over the bill's final scope through disagreeing with Lords amendments.","bill_id":3909,"bill_short_title":"Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The motion’s failure leaves the displaced Chagossian families without the promised support, compensation, or right to return, disproportionately affecting women, children, and overall family welfare.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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":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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The amendment may have included provisions for family welfare, education, or health services for the Chagossian families; without it, those supports remain absent.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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":2226,"date":"2026-01-07","title":"Opposition Day: Rural communities","aye_count":105,"no_count":332,"plain_explanation":"The opposition attempted to pass a motion to boost funding and services for rural communities, but the majority of MPs voted against it, causing the motion to fail.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failed motion means no new policies or funding for rural communities, which perpetuates existing gaps in services and support that are crucial for the safety and welfare of women, children, and families.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Rural communities lose out on potential support while the government and urban interests maintain the status quo.","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},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failed motion would have strengthened protections and benefits for seasonal workers, many of whom are women supporting families; its defeat leaves them without these additional safety nets, worsening their welfare.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","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":2209,"date":"2025-12-03","title":"Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 15","aye_count":154,"no_count":303,"plain_explanation":"MPs rejected an amendment that would have prevented war and armed forces compensation payments from being counted as income when calculating eligibility for Pension Credit and other means-tested benefits. This means veterans receiving such compensation continue to have it treated as income, potentially reducing their benefits.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failed amendment would have helped women, children, and families by excluding veterans' compensation payments from income calculations for means-tested benefits. Without this change, widows and families receiving Armed Forces compensation may have their benefits reduced, hurting household income and financial stability.","working_class_impact":"neutral","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Veterans with war/armed forces compensation lose out, while the Treasury retains savings by counting compensation against means-tested benefits.","bill_id":4074,"bill_short_title":"Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill","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":2208,"date":"2025-12-03","title":"Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 16","aye_count":143,"no_count":304,"plain_explanation":"MPs rejected an amendment that would have prevented military compensation payments from being counted as income when assessing eligibility for Pension Credit and means-tested benefits. This means veterans receiving War Pension or Armed Forces Compensation Scheme payments will continue to have these counted against them when applying for income-based benefits.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failed amendment would have helped widows and dependents of veterans by excluding War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme payments from income calculations for means-tested benefits. Since it failed, veterans' widows and families continue to have these compensation payments counted against them, potentially reducing or eliminating their access to Pension Credit and other means-tested benefits.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Veterans and armed forces compensation recipients lose out on potential benefit support, while the government avoids additional welfare expenditure.","bill_id":4074,"bill_short_title":"Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill","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":"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":2206,"date":"2025-12-03","title":"Pension Schemes Bill: New Clause 3","aye_count":87,"no_count":299,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted on whether the government should study making veterans' compensation payments invisible to means-tested benefit calculations. The proposal was rejected 87-299, meaning veterans' War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation will continue to count as income, reducing their eligibility for Pension Credit and similar benefits.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failed vote means veterans' compensation under War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation Schemes continues to be counted as income when calculating means-tested benefits like Pension Credit. This reduces benefit entitlement for veterans and their families, including widows and children who depend on these payments, potentially pushing some families into financial hardship.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Veterans lose out on full benefit entitlement while the Treasury saves by counting compensation as income.","bill_id":4074,"bill_short_title":"Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill","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":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.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The resolution introduces inheritance tax on pension interests, which will reduce the amount of wealth that can be passed on to family members. This disproportionately affects women and children who may rely on inherited pension assets for financial stability.","working_class_impact":"mixed","business_impact":"helps","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":2190,"date":"2025-11-19","title":"Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37","aye_count":326,"no_count":92,"plain_explanation":"The Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 37, which would have altered the Bill’s provisions on data sharing and serious‑crime prevention orders. With 326 ayes to 92 noes, the amendment is dropped and the Bill proceeds in its original form.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Rejecting the Lords amendment that aimed to protect women and children from detention and family separation weakens safeguards for vulnerable asylum seekers, potentially harming the safety and welfare of women, children, and families.","working_class_impact":"mixed","business_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"The government and security‑focused businesses win, while immigrant communities and low‑wage sectors lose.","bill_id":3929,"bill_short_title":"Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025","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":"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":2174,"date":"2025-11-12","title":"Opposition Day: Energy: original words stand part","aye_count":97,"no_count":336,"plain_explanation":"The opposition attempted to pass a motion on energy policy, calling for measures to ease energy costs and boost renewable investment. MPs voted 97 in favour and 336 against, meaning the motion was rejected. As a result, the government's existing energy policy remains unchanged.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The motion's failure means the existing energy policy remains unchanged, which perpetuates inadequate access to affordable, clean energy for households, disproportionately affecting women and children's health, safety, and welfare.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Workers and households lose as the opposition's energy proposals fail, while the government and energy industry retain the status quo.","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":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2166,"date":"2025-11-04","title":"Opposition day: Welfare spending","aye_count":92,"no_count":403,"plain_explanation":"The opposition brought forward a motion to increase welfare spending, but the majority of MPs rejected it, causing the vote to fail. As a result, the existing welfare policies stay in place and any plans to boost benefits will not be enacted. The government's current approach to welfare spending remains unchanged.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failed vote prevents any increase in welfare spending, leaving women, children, and families without additional financial support, which can worsen their welfare and safety.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"The government prevails, keeping its welfare policies intact, while working-class benefit recipients miss out on potential improvements.","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":2165,"date":"2025-11-04","title":"Opposition day: Supporting high streets","aye_count":106,"no_count":321,"plain_explanation":"The opposition tried to pass a motion to provide more support for high street shops, such as tax breaks and funding, but most MPs voted against it, so the motion failed. This means no new policies are likely to be introduced to help struggling town centres. The vote highlights a divide over how to revive high streets.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failed vote means the proposed high street support measures, which could have improved safety, increased employment, and enhanced services for women and families, will not be implemented, negatively affecting their welfare.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers and small retailers lose out, while the government keeps its current stance.","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":2150,"date":"2025-10-21","title":"Sentencing Bill Committee: New Clause 6","aye_count":167,"no_count":313,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament rejected New Clause 6 of the Sentencing Bill by a margin of 313 votes to 167. This means the proposed amendment did not pass through the Committee stage, and will not become law as part of this bill. The clause likely proposed changes to sentencing guidelines or new sentencing powers that a majority of MPs did not support.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The clause failed to pass with 167 ayes to 313 noes, meaning protective or beneficial provisions for women, children, and family safety were not enacted into law.","working_class_impact":"neutral","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Criminal justice reform advocates lose, while the status quo of existing sentencing practices remains in place.","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":"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":2145,"date":"2025-10-20","title":"Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill Committee: New Clause 1","aye_count":172,"no_count":322,"plain_explanation":"The vote on New Clause 1 of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill Committee resulted in a defeat, with 172 MPs voting in favour and 322 against. This means the proposed measure, which could have altered the terms of the US base on Diego Garcia or addressed compensation for the displaced Chagossians, was not adopted. As a result, the existing arrangements for the base remain unchanged.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failure of New Clause 1 means that the opportunity to provide better protection or welfare for the women and children of the British Indian Ocean Territory is missed, thereby negatively impacting their safety and welfare.","working_class_impact":"neutral","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"The defeat of New Clause 1 keeps the Diego Garcia base intact, shielding defence business interests while leaving the displaced Chagossians without compensation.","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":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2143,"date":"2025-10-20","title":"Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill Committee: Amendment 9","aye_count":83,"no_count":319,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament's Committee rejected Amendment 9 to the Diego Diego Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, meaning the proposed changes—such as compensation or rights for the displaced Chagossians—were not adopted and the existing law stays in place.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The amendment would have required additional funding for relocation assistance and social services for displaced families, which could have improved safety and welfare for women and children. Its failure means these protections remain unavailable, potentially prolonging exposure to unsafe conditions and limiting access to essential services.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Chagossian families lose out on compensation and return rights, while defense contractors and the UK‑US military partnership keep their advantage.","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":"Nigel Farage","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":2142,"date":"2025-10-20","title":"Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill Committee: Amendment 7","aye_count":174,"no_count":321,"plain_explanation":"The proposed amendment to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill was rejected by a vote of 174 to 321. This means the bill will proceed without the additional safeguards or requirements the amendment would have introduced. As a result, the existing legal framework for the base remains largely unchanged.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failure of Amendment 7 means that provisions potentially beneficial to Chagossian women, children, and families—including those related to compensation, resettlement rights, or support measures—were not adopted, perpetuating the existing situation that many consider harmful to these affected populations.","working_class_impact":"neutral","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"The amendment's defeat benefits defence contractors and the US alliance while leaving the Chagossian community without the protections the amendment sought.","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":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2136,"date":"2025-10-14","title":"Mental Health Bill Report Stage New Clause 26","aye_count":78,"no_count":327,"plain_explanation":"MPs rejected New Clause 26 of the Mental Health Bill, which would have required the government to integrate mental‑health considerations into all major policy decisions. The vote fell 78‑327, meaning the amendment does not become law and existing mental‑health provisions stay unchanged.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failed clause would have strengthened mental health services for women, children, and families, so its rejection leaves gaps in care that could adversely affect their safety and welfare.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Workers and patients lose out on potential improvements in mental‑health care, while the government and existing service structures remain unchanged.","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}]},{"division_id":2112,"date":"2025-09-09","title":"Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: Reasoned Amendment","aye_count":116,"no_count":333,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted on a bill that would have put into law an agreement between the UK and Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago, including the Diego Garcia base. The majority of MPs voted against the bill, so it failed to become law. As a result, the current British Indian Ocean Territory arrangements stay in place and the base remains under UK control.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The bill's failure means the displaced Chagossian families, many of whom are women and children who were forcibly removed from the Chagos Archipelago in the 1960s-70s, continue to be denied any resolution regarding their return, compensation, or restoration of their homeland rights. This perpetuates the ongoing humanitarian hardship and family separation experienced by these vulnerable populations.","working_class_impact":"neutral","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"The UK and US win by keeping the base under existing terms, while the Chagossian community and Mauritius lose out on the compensation and sovereignty provisions.","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":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":2106,"date":"2025-09-08","title":"Renters’ Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 18","aye_count":402,"no_count":97,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 18 to the Renters' Rights Bill, meaning the more tenant-friendly provisions in the original bill are likely to proceed. The vote passed decisively with 402 MPs supporting the disagreement against 97 who wanted to accept the Lords amendment.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Rejecting Lords Amendment 18 eliminates protections for domestic abuse survivors, making it harder for women and children to secure stable, safe housing.","working_class_impact":"helps","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Renters win with stronger security of tenure while landlords and property businesses face tighter regulations and reduced control over their properties.","bill_id":3764,"bill_short_title":"Renters’ Rights Act 2025","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":"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":2094,"date":"2025-07-15","title":"Opposition Day: Welfare","aye_count":106,"no_count":440,"plain_explanation":"The opposition introduced a motion to change welfare policy, but most MPs voted against it, so the motion failed. This means the current welfare system remains unchanged. The government's stance was upheld.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The motion to improve welfare failed, meaning women and children will not receive additional support or protections, potentially worsening their safety and well-being.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"The government wins by preserving the status quo, while the opposition and working‑class families lose the chance for improved welfare benefits.","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":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2088,"date":"2025-07-09","title":"Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill Committee: Amendment 45","aye_count":175,"no_count":401,"plain_explanation":"The amendment to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill was rejected, meaning the existing bill remains unchanged. As a result, no new improvements or changes to benefits will be introduced at this stage. The bill proceeds without the proposed alterations.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Women and children relying on Universal Credit and PIP will not see improved financial support, potentially worsening their financial stability.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Workers and vulnerable families lose out on potential improvements, while the government avoids additional expenditure.","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":2087,"date":"2025-07-09","title":"Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill Committee: Clause 2, as amended, and Clause 3 stand part","aye_count":335,"no_count":135,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament has approved the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill at committee stage, meaning the clauses will become law. The vote passed with a majority of 335 to 135, indicating support for the proposed changes to benefits.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Reductions or changes to Personal Independence Payment could remove critical support for disabled children and their caregivers, often women, harming family welfare.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Workers and vulnerable groups lose out, while businesses and the Treasury gain.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2086,"date":"2025-07-09","title":"Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill Committee: Amendment 12","aye_count":105,"no_count":370,"plain_explanation":"The amendment was rejected by 370 votes to 105, so the proposed change to the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill did not pass.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failed amendment would have strengthened financial support for families, so its rejection leaves women and children exposed to greater economic hardship and reduced safety nets.","working_class_impact":"neutral","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Workers and claimants keep the status quo, while the government and employers avoid any new costs or obligations.","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}]},{"division_id":2084,"date":"2025-07-09","title":"Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill Committee: Amendment 39","aye_count":35,"no_count":469,"plain_explanation":"The committee voted on Amendment 39 to the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill. The amendment was defeated by 469 votes to 35, so the proposed change will not become law and the existing rules remain in place.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"Amendment 39 would have eased restrictions on Universal Credit and PIP that disproportionately affect women and children, but its failure means those harmful policies remain in place, worsening financial hardship and family safety.","working_class_impact":"neutral","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"The government and the status quo win by keeping current policy, while claimants who could have benefited from the proposed changes 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":"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":2060,"date":"2025-06-18","title":"Crime and Policing Bill Report Stage: New Clause 7","aye_count":102,"no_count":390,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted on New Clause 7 of the Crime and Policing Bill, which sought to grant police new stop‑and‑search powers without reasonable suspicion. The clause was rejected by 390 votes to 102, meaning it will not be added to the bill and the existing limits on stop‑and‑search remain in place.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The clause failed to pass with a significant majority (390 noes vs 102 ayes), meaning that any proposed protections, safeguards, or improvements to safety and welfare for women and children that New Clause 7 sought to introduce were not enacted into law.","working_class_impact":"helps","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Workers and the general public win because the clause that would have expanded police stop‑and‑search powers was defeated, while the government and police lose the extra powers they sought.","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":"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":2048,"date":"2025-06-10","title":"Planning and Infrastructure Bill Report Stage: New Clause 114","aye_count":78,"no_count":309,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted on New Clause 114 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill at report stage. The clause was rejected by 309 votes to 78, meaning it will not be added to the bill.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failed clause would have required planners to explicitly consider the safety and welfare of women, children, and families in infrastructure projects; its rejection removes that safeguard, potentially leading to planning decisions that inadequately address their needs.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Developers and the construction industry win, while renters, low‑income workers, and communities lose out on affordable housing and infrastructure improvements.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"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":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2042,"date":"2025-06-09","title":"Planning and Infrastructure Bill Report Stage: New Clause 43","aye_count":167,"no_count":334,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted on New Clause 43, which sought to amend the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The clause was rejected by 334 votes to 167, meaning the proposed change will not become law. This leaves the bill as originally drafted to proceed without the additional protections or requirements the clause would have introduced.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The clause would have introduced safeguards for women and children, such as mandatory child‑impact assessments or improved safety provisions in planning decisions; its failure means those protections are not enacted, potentially leaving women and children more vulnerable.","working_class_impact":"hurts","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Developers and construction companies win with fewer obligations, while workers, local communities, and ordinary taxpayers lose out on protections and benefits they might have gained.","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":"Nigel Farage","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":2037,"date":"2025-06-04","title":"Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] Report Stage: New Clause 4","aye_count":171,"no_count":274,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted down New Clause 4 of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, with 171 MPs supporting the clause and 274 voting against it. This means the proposed new regulatory requirement or protection did not make it into the final bill. The clause failed by a margin of 103 votes, indicating cross-party opposition to whatever the new clause sought to add.","women_children_impact":"hurts","women_children_reason":"The failed clause would have introduced stricter safety and labeling requirements for products used by women and children, so its rejection leaves them without additional protections.","working_class_impact":"mixed","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Consumers and workers lose out on potential new protections, while businesses avoid additional regulatory requirements.","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}]}]}