Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 334
356Ayes
90Noes
Carried · majority 266 · Government won201 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 356 · No 90 · DNV 201 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 14 April 2026, the House of Commons voted by 356 to 90 to reject a Lords amendment (Amendment 334) to the Crime and Policing Bill that would have abolished non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) in statute. The government's motion to disagree with the Lords passed comfortably, meaning Parliament will not enshrine a full statutory ban on NCHIs in law. Non-crime hate incidents are records kept by police of incidents reported as motivated by hostility toward a protected characteristic, even where no crime has been committed. Critics argue the practice chills free speech by placing records against individuals who have broken no law. The Lords wanted to abolish NCHIs entirely through primary legislation. The government's position, which prevailed, is that it has already withdrawn the existing NCHI code of practice and accepted a College of Policing review recommending a tougher new national standard, making a full statutory abolition unnecessary. The practical effect is that NCHIs will continue to exist in some form, but under a stricter framework set by the College of Policing rather than being eliminated altogether. The vote divided sharply along party lines. Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and Co-operative MPs, the Greens, and Plaid Cymru all backed the government's position. Conservatives, the Democratic Unionist Party, Reform UK, Traditional Unionist Voice, and three independents voted to retain the Lords amendment and push for full abolition. There were no notable cross-party rebellions from within the government bloc. The vote reflects a broader tension in the bill's passage between those who see NCHI reform as insufficient and those who accept the government's incremental regulatory approach as an adequate safeguard for free expression.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's approach of replacing the existing NCHI code of practice with a stricter national standard, rather than an outright statutory abolition of NCHIs
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment to fully abolish non-crime hate incidents in law, arguing the government's alternative does not go far enough to protect free speech and civil liberties
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
256
0
105
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
80
36
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
60
0
12
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
—
6
3
4
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
2
6
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
3
0
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
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Moved motions to disagree with specific Lords amendments on crime and policing measures while agreeing with the majority of Lords amendments on respect orders and related provisions.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0