Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Amendments 2D and 2E
293Ayes
159Noes
Carried · majority 134 · Government won195 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 293 · No 159 · DNV 195 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 20 April 2026 to accept the government's compromise amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill in place of two Lords amendments, numbered 2D and 2E, by 293 votes to 159. The motion also bundled related government positions on three other disputed areas. The result clears the final set of disagreements with the House of Lords and sends the Bill towards Royal Assent as the Crime and Policing Act 2026. The vote concerns four areas of the Bill where the Lords had pressed for stronger or more binding provisions. These include rules around fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour, vehicle seizure powers to tackle fly-tipping, the role of consultation in youth diversion orders, and public order provisions. The government's compromise amendments use permissive drafting, allowing statutory guidance to address these matters, rather than imposing hard duties. Critics argued this falls short of the mandatory protections the Lords sought, particularly on requiring police to consult beyond youth justice teams before applying for a youth diversion order. Labour MPs voted unanimously in favour, while Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted entirely against. Smaller parties including the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party and Traditional Unionist Voice all voted no. Two independents voted aye and three voted no. The vote is the culmination of a prolonged back-and-forth between the two chambers; the minister, Sarah Jones, noted that 19 points of disagreement had been reduced to four in the week before this sitting, and the same four issues were voted on in separate divisions on the same day with near-identical margins.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's compromise amendments in lieu of the Lords' versions, accepting Labour's revised positions on anti-social behaviour enforcement, fly-tipping powers, youth diversion consultations, and public order — and sending the Bill forward to Royal Assent.
Voting No meant
Prefer the Lords' original amendments, arguing the government's compromise wording (using 'may' rather than binding duties) does not go far enough on protections such as mandatory consultation before youth diversion orders and stronger fly-tipping enforcement tools.
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 party-line column is inferred from how cohesively each party voted, not a published whip: a clear one-way majority of a party’s voters reads as a line, a close division reads as “Split”.
Party
Party line
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Voted Aye
260
0
101
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
90
26
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
54
17
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted Aye
33
0
9
Independent
—
2
4
7
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Voted No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Voted No
0
4
1
Plaid Cymru
Voted No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your 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
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · party line inferred from voting cohesion, not a published whip; “Split” = a close within-party division
Government Minister defending four amendments in lieu that strengthen but do not fully adopt Lords amendments; resists pressure to mandate IRGC proscription and wider consultation on youth diversion orders, citing established principles and existing statutory guidance powers.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,263 words) →
Opposition spokesperson arguing the Bill misses opportunities on fly-tipping vehicle seizure and criticising Government inaction on IRGC proscription despite Labour's prior opposition promises; challenges the utility of existing powers.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,650 words) →
Liberal Democrat spokesperson opposing Government amendments in lieu as insufficiently strong; seeks outright ban on profit-driven fixed penalties and mandatory language on youth diversion consultations, while supporting Conservative fly-tipping amendment.Liberal Democrats · Voted no · Read full speech (823 words) →
Government backbencher acknowledging fly-tipping's serious impact but supporting the Minister's position that existing police and local authority powers are adequate with better enforcement and rural crime strategy.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,045 words) →
Government backbencher from Portsmouth supporting the Bill's provisions on fixed penalties and fly-tipping; emphasises need for prompt statutory guidance and local authority confidence to enforce existing powers.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (863 words) →
Backbencher questioning freedom of speech implications in public order legislation and strongly supporting immediate IRGC proscription given recent executions and security threats.DUP · Voted no · Read full speech (222 words) →
Government backbencher from Newcastle-under-Lyme emphasising constituent concerns about fly-tipping's corrosive impact on communities and seeking confirmation that statutory guidance will empower council enforcement.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (580 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0