Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Reason 342B
294Ayes
61Noes
Carried · majority 233 · Government won292 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 294 · No 61 · DNV 292 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 20 April 2026 to reject a Lords amendment (342B) on youth diversion orders and accept a government compromise instead. The motion passed 294 to 61. The government's substitute amendment requires statutory guidance on youth diversion orders to address when police should consult parties beyond the youth justice teams already mandated in clause 174 of the Bill, covering applications for orders as well as variations and discharges. The vote matters because youth diversion orders are a new civil tool in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 designed to steer young people away from criminal behaviour. The Lords had pushed for a firm, statutory duty on police to consult relevant parties before seeking, varying, or discharging such orders. The government's position replaces that duty with a requirement that statutory guidance must cover when such wider consultation is appropriate, leaving the precise consultation obligation in guidance rather than on the face of the legislation. This affects how police and youth justice agencies interact when applying for orders targeting young people. Labour MPs voted unanimously for the government's position, with 294 Ayes overall. The Liberal Democrats provided the bulk of the 61 Noes, joined by the four Green MPs and three Plaid Cymru members. The Conservative Party had no vote recorded. This was one of four outstanding disagreements between the Commons and Lords on the Bill during its final parliamentary exchanges; the government noted that the Lords had already accepted the Commons position on the other 15 disputed issues from the previous week.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's compromise amendment on youth diversion orders, which requires statutory guidance to address wider consultation, rather than the Lords' more prescriptive mandatory consultation duty.
Voting No meant
Prefer the Lords' stronger position — that police must be under a firmer, statutory obligation to consult relevant parties before seeking youth diversion orders, rather than relying on guidance that 'may' address the issue.
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
261
0
100
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
55
16
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted Aye
33
0
9
Independent
—
1
1
11
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
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
0
1
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_vote_recorded · 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_vote_recorded · 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