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

Tuesday, 14 April 2026 · Division No. 473 · Commons

281Ayes
70Noes
Passed

296 MPs did not vote

centreGovernment wonCounter Terrorism Powers(Yes)Judicial Safeguards(No)Youth Justice Flexibility(Yes)Lords Oversight(No)

Voting Yes means

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 means

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

What happened: The House of Commons voted on 14 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 342 to the Crime and Policing Bill, which would have required specific evidence to be presented to a court when applying for a youth diversion order, a civil order used in terrorism and serious harm cases involving young people. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 281 votes to 70. In place of the Lords amendment, the government proposed its own alternative approach requiring statutory guidance to set out what evidence courts should consider when granting such orders.

Why it matters: Youth diversion orders are designed to intervene early with young people at risk of involvement in terrorism or serious harm, before a criminal conviction is secured. The Lords amendment sought to ensure courts would only impose these orders where particular forms of evidence were placed before them, embedding that requirement directly in statute. The government argued this would create unhelpful rigidity in what is a sensitive and complex area of law. Its alternative, relying on statutory guidance rather than hard statutory requirements, gives courts and practitioners more flexibility while still providing a framework for decision-making. The practical effect is that the evidentiary threshold for obtaining these orders will be shaped by guidance rather than primary legislation, which critics argue provides weaker protection for young people subject to the orders.

The politics: The vote divided largely along government and opposition lines. Labour MPs voted unanimously in favour, providing the bulk of the 281 ayes alongside small contributions from the Traditional Unionist Voice and Ulster Unionist Party. The Liberal Democrats supplied 59 of the 70 no votes, joined by the Greens, Plaid Cymru, one Conservative MP, and several independents. The Conservatives were notable mostly by their absence, with 115 of their MPs not voting. The division was one of several on the same day in which the government successfully overturned or modified Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, described by ministers as the largest criminal justice bill in a generation.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
252 Aye/0 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0 Aye/59 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
27 Aye/0 No
Independent
2 Aye/3 No
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0 Aye/4 No
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0 Aye/3 No
Conservative and Unionist Party
0 Aye/1 No
Traditional Unionist Voice
1 Aye/0 No
Ulster Unionist Party
1 Aye/0 No
Your Party
0 Aye/1 No

What They Said in the Debate

Apsana Begum

Labour · Poplar and Limehouse

Opposed

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.

Wendy Morton

Conservative · Aldridge-Brownhills

Opposed

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.

Dame Caroline Dinenage

Conservative · Gosport

Questioning

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.

Matt Vickers

Conservative · Stockton West

Neutral

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.

Max Wilkinson

Liberal Democrat · Cheltenham

Neutral

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.

Voted No

Andy McDonald

Labour · Middlesbrough and Thornaby East

Neutral

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.

Voted Aye

Sarah Jones

Labour · Croydon West

Supportive

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.

Voted Aye

Tonia Antoniazzi

Labour · Gower

Supportive

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.

Voted Aye

Related Votes