A divisionDivision No. 504 · Wednesday, 22 April 2026· Commons· Crime and Policing

Crime and Policing Bill: Government motion in relation to LA439

253Ayes
143Noes
Carried · majority 110 · Government won
252 did not vote
Aye253No145DID NOT VOTE · 252

648 Members · Aye 253 · No 143 · DNV 252 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

MPs voted on 22 April 2026 to reject Lords amendments 439E and 439F to the Crime and Policing Bill, insisting instead on the Commons' own amendments 439C and 439D. The government motion passed by 253 votes to 143. The amendments in question concerned a requirement for the Home Secretary to review the proscription of groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This was the third time the Commons had voted to reject Lords changes on related provisions, as part of the back-and-forth process between the two chambers known as parliamentary ping-pong. The practical effect is that the Bill will not include a statutory obligation on the Home Secretary to review whether the IRGC should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation. The government argued that no responsible administration can publicly commit to a timetable or commentary on proscription decisions, on the grounds that doing so could compromise national security. The Lords had twice pushed back, seeking to compel a formal review, but the elected Commons has now prevailed. The vote also touched on fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour, where the government committed to clarifying proportionality requirements through statutory guidance rather than accepting the Lords' alternative wording. Labour MPs voted unanimously in favour of the government motion, with 251 combined Labour and Labour and Co-operative votes. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted entirely against, providing the 143 noes. The Greens also voted no. The Liberal Democrats chose not to force a separate vote on the fixed penalty notice provisions, indicating a degree of pragmatic concession on that front while maintaining their opposition on the IRGC question. The vote sits at the final stages of a lengthy Bill that has passed through multiple rounds of ping-pong, with this division representing the government's attempt to close down remaining points of disagreement and bring the legislation to Royal Assent.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position on amendment LA439 to the Crime and Policing Bill
Voting No meant
Oppose the government's position on amendment LA439, backing the alternative approach proposed in or against LA439
§ 01Who voted how.396 voting Members · 252 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
228
0
133
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
85
31
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
53
19
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
23
0
19
Independent
1
1
11
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
1
4
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
1
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1
Your Party
0
0
1

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.4 principal speakers
Sarah JonesOpposedCroydon West
Government will not accept Lords amendments requiring mandatory review of IRGC proscription; proscription decisions must remain executive prerogative and cannot be subject to parliamentary running commentary.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,325 words)
Joy MorrisseySupportiveBeaconsfield
Lords amendments should be accepted; IRGC proscription is essential given documented terrorist threats to UK, funding of extremist groups, and threats to Jewish community security.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (479 words)
Jim ShannonSupportiveStrangford
Government should proscribe the IRGC immediately without delay, citing executions in Iran and the moral imperative to act.DUP · Voted no · Read full speech (123 words)
Max WilkinsonSupportiveCheltenham
Welcomes government concessions on youth diversion orders; disappointed on fixed penalty notices; supports Lords amendments on IRGC proscription given antisemitic sentiment and Iranian-funded activities.Liberal Democrats · Voted no · Read full speech (216 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0