A divisionDivision No. 236 · Wednesday, 18 June 2025· Commons· Crime & Policing

Crime and Policing Bill Report Stage: New Clause 88

178Ayes
313Noes
Defeated · majority 135 · Government won
156 did not vote
Aye179No314DID NOT VOTE · 156

647 Members · Aye 178 · No 313 · DNV 156 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament rejected a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill on 18 June 2025 that would have introduced personal criminal liability for water company executives responsible for sewage pollution. The vote was defeated by 313 votes to 178, with the government opposing the measure. The amendment, New Clause 88, was tabled by Lisa Smart, the Liberal Democrat MP for Hazel Grove, and would have created a mechanism to hold water company executives personally accountable in criminal law for sewage dumped in rivers and on beaches. The government argued that the Water (Special Measures) Act, which received Royal Assent earlier in 2025, had already strengthened the regulatory framework sufficiently by introducing automatic penalties on polluters and banning bonuses for water company executives who fail to meet adequate standards. The vote divided sharply along party lines, with all 307 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backing the government's position and opposing the amendment. The Liberal Democrats provided the largest bloc of support, with 62 of their MPs voting in favour. The Conservatives, despite having been criticised by Lisa Smart for allowing water companies to operate "with impunity" under the previous government, voted 93 to nil in favour of the amendment. Reform UK, the Greens, and Plaid Cymru also voted in favour. One Liberal Democrat MP had no vote recorded.

Voting Aye meant
Support creating criminal liability for water company executives who allow sewage to be dumped in rivers and on beaches, going further than existing regulation.
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment on the grounds that the Water (Special Measures) Act already introduced automatic penalties and executive bonus bans, making further criminal liability unnecessary.
§ 01Who voted how.491 voting Members · 156 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
279
82
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
93
0
23
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
62
1
8
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
28
14
Independent
7
4
2
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
7
0
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
2
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
1
0
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.2 principal speakers
Tonia AntoniazziSupportiveGower
Proposed New Clause 2 to criminalise commercial sexual exploitation by third parties, including those profiting from prostitution and operating websites with adverts.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,884 words)
Judith CumminsSupportiveBradford South
Introduced New Clause 3 to make it an offence to pay for sex, and New Clause 4 to decriminalise victims of commercial sexual exploitation by repealing loitering/soliciting offences.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (30,584 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0