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
On 14 April 2026, MPs voted by 307 to 176 to reject Lords Amendment 2 to the Crime and Policing Bill, backing the government's position that its own alternative provisions should replace the amendment passed in the upper chamber. The government simultaneously tabled amendments (a) to (c) in lieu, meaning it was not simply blocking the Lords change but substituting its own version of the policy. Lords Amendment 2 was one of hundreds of changes made to what the government has described as the largest criminal justice bill in a generation. The bill spans knife crime, violence against women and girls (VAWG), antisocial behaviour, online safety, and terrorism-related offences. By rejecting this specific amendment while offering its own alternative measures, the government maintained control over the precise legal drafting of provisions that will affect how courts, police, and technology platforms respond to a range of serious harms. The bill's online safety elements include new duties on platforms to remove non-consensual intimate images and powers to extend the Online Safety Act to cover AI chatbots. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously for the government's position, delivering 298 of the 307 aye votes. All 92 Conservative MPs present voted no, as did all 61 Liberal Democrats, reflecting cross-opposition resistance to the government's substitution rather than to the bill's broader aims. Smaller parties including the DUP, Greens, Plaid Cymru, and Reform UK also voted no. One independent voted with the government while seven voted against. The debate on this and related amendments revealed tensions within Labour's own ranks over provisions on protest rights and the handling of AI regulation, though these did not translate into rebellions in the lobbies on this division.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position of rejecting the specific Lords amendment while accepting the government's own alternative provisions in its place
Voting No meant
Support retaining the Lords amendment as passed, disagreeing with the government's proposed substitution
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
61
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
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
Your 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