This exploratory study provides an answer to the question what a coalition agreement means for negotiation by political parties in the House and what consequences this has for the motions submitted. Motions on environmental and immigration policy are compared at the time of two different governments. Based on the coalition agreements we estimate how much space for negotiation with regard to both issues and both periods is available. On that basis predictions are made regarding the numbers of submitted and passed motions. Moreover, a new classification is introduced in order to be able to group motions based on the intended purpose. Also predictions are made about this. The results show that, in line with expectations, fewer motions are proposed on issues where the negotiation space is limited, but this effect is not significant. However, there are significant findings with regard to motions that have passed. Where negotiation space is smaller, fewer motions pass than with respect to topics where the negotiation space is greater. As regards the different types of motions, the research gives unexpected, but interesting, results.