Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating Lords Reasons 359B and 439B
292Ayes
158Noes
Carried · majority 134 · Government won196 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 292 · No 158 · DNV 196 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 20 April 2026 to back the government's compromise amendments in the final stages of the Crime and Policing Bill, overriding Lords amendments on four remaining areas of dispute: fly-tipping enforcement, youth diversion orders, antisocial behaviour fixed penalty notices, and public order. The motion passed by 292 ayes to 158 noes. The vote cleared the final legislative hurdle, and the bill subsequently became law. The four contested issues all turned on the same underlying question: whether statutory guidance (advice that bodies must have regard to but are not legally compelled to follow) is a sufficient substitute for hard statutory duties (legal requirements that can be enforced in court). The Lords had sought mandatory consultation before youth diversion orders are issued, stricter controls on enforcement agencies using fixed penalty notices as a revenue source, and firmer duties on fly-tipping enforcement. The government replaced each of those requirements with amended statutory guidance provisions, arguing they offered sufficient reassurance without unnecessarily constraining operational flexibility. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 293 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs present voted aye, with no defections recorded. All 91 Conservative MPs who voted went through the no lobby, joined by all 55 Liberal Democrats, four Democratic Unionist Party members, four Green MPs, three Plaid Cymru MPs, one Traditional Unionist Voice MP, and two independents. One independent voted with the government. The bill had been through an extended back-and-forth between the Commons and the Lords, with 19 points of contention at the previous week's stage reduced to four by the time this vote was held.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's compromise amendments in lieu of Lords changes, accepting softer statutory guidance rather than mandatory duties on police consultation and enforcement proportionality, and backing the bill's overall package on crime and policing.
Voting No meant
Prefer the Lords' amendments, which would have imposed stronger legal requirements — such as mandatory consultation before youth diversion orders and stricter rules on fining for profit — rather than relying on non-binding statutory guidance.
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
Voted No
0
91
25
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
54
17
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted Aye
32
0
10
Independent
—
1
3
9
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