Crime & Policing
Based on 48 parliamentary votes
Sub-issues
How Parties Voted on Crime & Policing
Government alignment shows how often each party voted with the government's stated position. Issue-aligned direction shows agreement with the AI-identified supportive stance.
Voted with government positionVoted in issue-aligned direction
Recent Votes
| Vote | Result | Date |
|---|---|---|
The government voted to overturn a Lords amendment related to the financing of private prosecutions. The Lords had added rules about how private prosecutions are funded, but the government sought to remove this change from the Victims and Courts Bill. Yes = Support the government's decision to remove the Lords amendment on private prosecution financing, keeping the Bill as the government intended · No = Support keeping the Lords amendment on private prosecution financing, arguing it adds transparency and stronger protections within the criminal justice system Govt: Aye | 299-151 | 25 Mar 2026 |
MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have created a new statutory duty on the government to notify victims and help them apply to compensation schemes out of time. The government argued the duty was duplicative and confusing, preferring to develop their own approach; the opposition said the Lords change would strengthen victims' rights. Yes = Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, accepting ministers' assurance they will address victim notification through their own workable legislative changes rather than a parallel statutory duty · No = Support retaining the Lords amendment to create a statutory duty giving victims stronger rights to notification and access to compensation schemes, arguing the government's promises are insufficient Govt: Aye | 290-160 | 25 Mar 2026 |
The Commons voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment that would have given victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences and made the criminal justice system more transparent. The government argued the amendment had drafting flaws that could create legal uncertainty and a flood of unmeritorious appeals, while opposition MPs accused the government of stripping victims of important rights. Yes = Support rejecting the Lords amendment on the basis that its drafting is legally flawed and would create uncertainty for victims, offenders and courts — while claiming to accept the underlying intention · No = Support keeping the Lords amendment to give victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences and improve transparency in the criminal justice system Govt: Aye | 289-162 | 25 Mar 2026 |
The government voted to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have expanded victims' rights, including broader access to free court transcripts and stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences. The government argued it already plans to deliver free sentencing remarks for victims and wants to ensure any further changes are workable before committing to them. Yes = Support the government's position of rejecting the Lords amendment, preferring a more cautious, phased approach to expanding victims' rights rather than legislating immediately for broader changes · No = Support the Lords amendment, backing stronger victims' rights now including wider access to free court transcripts and enhanced ability to challenge unduly lenient sentences Govt: Aye | 293-160 | 25 Mar 2026 |
The government voted to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have given victims stronger rights to access court transcripts and challenge unduly lenient sentences. The Lords wanted greater transparency in the criminal justice system for victims, but the government argued it was prioritising free sentencing remarks first and would consider further steps later. Yes = Support the government's position of rejecting the Lords amendment, preferring a more gradual approach to expanding victims' access to court transcripts rather than legislating for broader rights now · No = Support the Lords amendment, backing greater transparency in the criminal justice system and stronger rights for victims to access court transcripts and challenge lenient sentences Govt: Aye | 287-165 | 25 Mar 2026 |
The government moved to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have expanded victims' rights — including broader access to free court transcripts and stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences. The government argued it supports these goals in principle but wants to implement them differently, while opposition parties said the Lords amendments were sensible and should be kept. Yes = Support the government's decision to remove the Lords amendment, accepting ministers' assurances they will deliver expanded victims' rights through other means at a later stage · No = Oppose removing the Lords amendment, arguing it should be kept to guarantee victims stronger rights to free court transcripts and to challenge unduly lenient sentences now, rather than relying on future government promises Govt: Aye | 295-163 | 25 Mar 2026 |
MPs voted on a Remedial Order to amend the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which had been found incompatible with human rights law. The order was designed to address legal concerns about the controversial immunity scheme for Troubles-era offences following court rulings that parts of the original Act breached the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes = Support passing the Remedial Order to bring the Troubles Legacy Act into compliance with human rights law, maintaining a reformed framework for dealing with the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles · No = Oppose the Remedial Order, either because it does not go far enough in addressing human rights concerns, because it still undermines victims' rights and access to justice, or because of broader opposition to the Legacy Act framework Govt: Aye | 372-104 | 21 Jan 2026 |
The Lords had amended the Sentencing Bill to require courts to provide free transcripts of judges' sentencing remarks within 14 days of a request, and to publish them online. The government rejected this Lords amendment, arguing it could increase judicial workload and worsen the Crown court backlog, proposing its own alternative amendments instead. Yes = Support rejecting the Lords amendment requiring free court transcripts of sentencing remarks within 14 days, preferring the government's own alternative approach · No = Support the Lords amendment giving victims and the public the right to free transcripts of sentencing remarks within 14 days, as proposed by the Conservatives in the Lords Govt: Aye | 318-128 | 20 Jan 2026 |
MPs voted on new regulations expanding the Public Order Act 2023 to criminalise interference with key national infrastructure, such as energy, transport, and water systems. This extends powers introduced to tackle disruptive protest tactics used by groups like Just Stop Oil. Yes = Support extending criminal offences to cover interference with key national infrastructure, strengthening powers to deter and prosecute disruptive protest activity · No = Oppose these regulations, likely on grounds that they excessively restrict the right to protest or represent an overreach of state power against civil disobedience Govt: Aye | 300-110 | 14 Jan 2026 |
The opposition brought forward a motion on jury trials, likely seeking to protect or expand the right to trial by jury. This is an Opposition Day debate, meaning the government was expected to vote against the motion. Yes = Support protecting or strengthening the right to jury trials in the criminal justice system · No = Oppose the motion on jury trials, likely defending government reforms that may limit or modify the scope of jury trial entitlements Govt: No | 184-290 | 7 Jan 2026 |
How is this calculated?
Government alignment (primary bar) shows how often a party's MPs voted with the government's stated position on this issue. This is the most comparable metric across parties, as it measures the same reference point for everyone.
Issue-aligned direction (secondary bar) shows how often MPs voted in the direction tagged as supportive of this issue by AI analysis. For example, if a vote is tagged “pro-environment”, a Yes vote counts as aligned. This can be misleading when the tagged direction happens to align with opposition amendments rather than government bills.
Why these metrics may differ: Opposition parties often vote against government bills for strategic or procedural reasons, even when they broadly support the policy area. The government alignment metric makes this clearer by showing the actual voting pattern against a consistent reference.
Source: Commons division data from the UK Parliament Votes API. Alignment direction determined by AI analysis of vote stance tags. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.