A divisionDivision No. 473 · Tuesday, 14 April 2026· Commons· Crime and Policing

Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 342

281Ayes
70Noes
Carried · majority 211 · Government won
296 did not vote
Aye283No71DID NOT VOTE · 296

647 Members · Aye 281 · No 70 · DNV 296 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 14 April 2026, the House of Commons voted by 281 to 70 to reject Lords Amendment 342 to the Crime and Policing Bill. The amendment, passed by the House of Lords, would have required specific evidence to be presented to a court before a youth diversion order could be granted in terrorism and serious harm cases. The Commons voted instead to support the government's alternative approach. Youth diversion orders are a new power in the Crime and Policing Bill designed to allow courts to intervene with young people at risk of involvement in terrorism or serious harm, with the aim of steering them away from offending. The Lords amendment would have written into statute the types of evidence a court must consider before granting such an order. The government argued this would create unhelpful rigidity and proposed instead that statutory guidance, rather than primary legislation, should set out what evidence courts ought to consider. The practical effect of the Commons vote is that the evidential framework will be set through guidance that can be updated without returning to Parliament, rather than fixed in the text of the law itself. The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 279 Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs who voted supported the government position, joined by small numbers of independents and the Ulster Unionist and Traditional Unionist Voice representatives. The Liberal Democrats provided the bulk of the opposition, with all 59 of their voting members backing the Lords amendment, alongside the Greens, Plaid Cymru, and a single Conservative. The Conservative Party was overwhelmingly absent, with 115 of its MPs not voting. The Lords subsequently returned to the question in a related division on 20 April 2026, where the Commons again prevailed, with 294 votes to 61, suggesting the upper chamber ultimately accepted the government's statutory guidance approach after a period of parliamentary back-and-forth known as ping-pong.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's approach of using flexible statutory guidance rather than rigid statutory evidence requirements for youth diversion orders in terrorism cases
Voting No meant
Support the Lords' position that specific evidence requirements should be enshrined in statute to ensure courts only impose youth diversion orders where truly necessary and proportionate
§ 01Who voted how.351 voting Members · 296 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 Aye
251
0
110
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
1
115
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
59
13
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
3
3
7
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
0
5
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
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
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

§ 02From the debate.1 principal speaker
Sarah JonesSupportiveCroydon West
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
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0