Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2
307Ayes
176Noes
Carried · majority 131 · Government won173 did not vote
656 Members · Aye 307 · No 176 · DNV 173 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 14 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 2 to the Crime and Policing Bill, passing the government's motion to disagree by 307 votes to 176. The Lords amendment would have placed a statutory ban on private companies being financially incentivised to issue as many fixed penalty notices as possible for anti-social behaviour, a practice critics called "fining for profit". The government instead proposed amendments in lieu substituting that statutory ban with non-statutory guidance on how private companies should handle fixed penalty notices. The practical effect is that no legally binding prohibition will exist on private enforcement companies profiting from the volume of fixed penalty notices they issue. The Lords had sought to ensure that more serious anti-social behaviour would be prioritised rather than enforcement being driven by financial returns. Under the government's preferred approach, any constraint on that incentive will rest on guidance rather than law, meaning companies cannot be held to a statutory standard on this point. The vote divided along clear party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs provided all 307 votes in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment. Conservatives (92 votes), Liberal Democrats (61 votes), Independents (6 votes), the Democratic Unionist Party (5 votes), the Green Party (4 votes), Plaid Cymru (3 votes), Reform UK (3 votes), and two MPs from Your Party all voted against, totalling 176 noes. The Liberal Democrats had tabled the original Lords amendment and pressed in debate for a statutory ban rather than guidance. This division was part of a broader exchange between the Commons and Lords on the Crime and Policing Bill, with several related divisions following in the weeks after.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position of replacing the Lords' statutory ban with non-statutory guidance on how private companies handle fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour — rejecting the Lords amendment in favour of a weaker but more flexible approach.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment imposing a statutory ban on private companies being financially incentivised to issue as many fixed penalty notices as possible, arguing that guidance alone is insufficient to prevent profit-driven enforcement of anti-social behaviour laws.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
269
0
92
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
92
24
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
60
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
—
2
7
4
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
3
5
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Government will accept Lords amendments on intimate image abuse, strangulation pornography, and hate crime extensions, but reject amendments restricting fixed penalty notices for profit, banning AI chatbots by design, and abolishing non-crime hate incidents recording.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (5,645 words) →
Welcomes Government U-turns on fly-tipping and weapon possession penalties, but regrets rejection of amendments on closure order extensions, proscribing extreme protest groups, and abolishing non-crime hate incidents.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,508 words) →
Supports online safety and violence against women measures, but strongly opposes cumulative disruption amendment as an assault on protest rights and calls for ban on fixed penalty notices for profit.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,276 words) →
Opposes the Bill as a fundamental assault on democratic freedoms, particularly Lords amendment 312 on cumulative disruption and identity concealment at protests, calling it a direct response to Palestine demonstrations.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (984 words) →
Welcomes most of Bill but strongly opposes Lords amendment 312 on cumulative disruption as continuation of restricting protest rights that undermine the labour movement's democratic tradition.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,668 words) →
Challenges Government for not adopting safety-by-design approach to AI chatbots; argues regulation should prevent harms rather than respond to them after the fact, like aircraft safety design.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (363 words) →
Strongly supports Lords amendment 361 and Government amendments providing automatic pardons and record expungement for women convicted or investigated for illegal abortion under outdated law.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (947 words) →
Urges Government to accept Lords amendments 6, 10, 11 on fly-tipping, emphasizing need for penalty points and vehicle seizure to deter criminal gangs and protect communities.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (789 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0