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
Aye253No143DID NOT VOTE · 252

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

Analysis
Commons

On 22 April 2026, the House of Commons passed Division 504, a government motion to insist on its own amendments 439C and 439D to the Crime and Policing Bill and to reject Lords amendments 439E and 439F, which had been offered by the House of Lords in lieu. The motion passed by 253 votes to 143. The Lords amendments at stake would have compelled the Home Secretary to review whether groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, specifically the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), should be proscribed as terrorist organisations. The Commons voted to reject that requirement, with the government arguing that no responsible administration should be required by Parliament to give a running commentary on proscription decisions, which it said are matters of national security judgment. The vote means no statutory obligation to conduct such a review will be placed on the Home Secretary. The division followed strict party lines. All 251 Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs who voted supported the government motion. All 85 Conservatives and all 53 Liberal Democrats who voted opposed it, as did four Green MPs and one DUP MP. The Liberal Democrats indicated they would not press a separate vote on fixed penalty notice provisions related to anti-social behaviour, having received a concession on the timeline for statutory guidance. This was the third occasion in quick succession on which the Commons had rejected Lords attempts to amend the Bill, with the government invoking the authority of the elected chamber to overrule the upper house.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position that proscription decisions must remain at ministerial discretion, rejecting Lords amendments compelling a formal review of IRGC proscription
Voting No meant
Back the Lords in requiring the government to review proscribing the IRGC and Iran-linked groups, citing credible threats to UK national security including plots against journalists, embassies, and Jewish communities
§ 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 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
228
0
133
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
85
31
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
52
19
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted Aye
23
0
19
Independent
1
2
10
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
Voted No
0
4
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Your Party
0
0
2
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

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · party line inferred from voting cohesion, not a published whip; “Split” = a close within-party division

Votes by party (CSV) · Premium
§ 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