A divisionDivision No. 230 · Tuesday, 17 June 2025· Commons· Crime & Policing

Crime and Policing Bill Report Stage: Amendment 19

189Ayes
328Noes
Defeated · majority 139 · Government won
126 did not vote
Aye189No328DID NOT VOTE · 126

643 Members · Aye 189 · No 328 · DNV 126 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

MPs voted on 17 June 2025 on Amendment 19 to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled by Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East). The amendment sought to extend the bill's new spiking offence so that recklessly causing spiking, not only deliberately doing so, would constitute a crime. The amendment was defeated by 328 votes to 189. The bill already creates a new offence of administering a harmful substance, covering deliberate spiking. Supporters of Amendment 19 argued that confining the offence to intentional acts leaves a gap: a person who acts recklessly, knowing that spiking might result but proceeding anyway, would escape prosecution under the clause as drafted. The practical effect of the defeat is that the spiking offence as enacted does not explicitly cover reckless acts, meaning cases where intent is difficult to prove could fall outside the new law's reach. The vote cut sharply across party lines, with the Labour Party and Labour and Co-operative Party providing almost all 328 votes against, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the DUP, and Reform UK all voted in favour. Five independent MPs backed the amendment and four opposed it. Robertson noted cross-party support for his amendment from Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, and Independent MPs, suggesting a small number of Labour members were sympathetic, though the party as a whole voted no. The defeat fits a pattern at this report stage, where several opposition amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill were similarly voted down in the same session, including New Clause 121 and New Clause 130 on 18 June 2025.

Voting Aye meant
Support closing a loophole in the spiking offence by making reckless spiking a crime, not just deliberate spiking — a cross-party position backed by Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green and Independent MPs.
Voting No meant
Oppose amending the spiking clause as drafted, implicitly accepting the Government's view that the existing bill adequately covers the offence without extending it to reckless acts.
§ 01Who voted how.517 voting Members · 126 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 No
0
298
63
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted Aye
101
0
15
Liberal Democrats
Voted Aye
67
0
4
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted No
0
28
14
Independent
6
4
3
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Voted Aye
4
0
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Voted Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Voted Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Voted Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0

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.6 principal speakers
Dame Diana JohnsonSupportiveKingston upon Hull North and Cottingham
Government minister defending the Bill's measures to tackle crime, antisocial behaviour, and violence against women and girls; arguing the Bill provides essential powers to address gaps in law and protect vulnerable people including emergency workers and children.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (6,557 words)
Matt VickersSupportiveStockton West
Shadow minister welcoming much of the Bill but arguing for stronger measures including increasing knife crime sentencing to 14 years, implementing driving licence penalty points for fly-tippers, and strengthening respect orders with enhanced sanctions.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,618 words)
Sam CarlingQuestioningNorth West Cambridgeshire
Backbencher supporting mandatory reporting but arguing the Bill does not go far enough; specifically advocating for criminal sanctions for non-compliance, extending the duty to all positions of trust as defined in Sexual Offences Act 2003, and broadening triggers to include recognised indicators of abuse.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,957 words)
Simon HoareNeutralNorth Dorset
Warning against treating the Crime Bill as a 'Christmas tree' for unrelated amendments, particularly those on abortion law, which risk fracturing cross-party consensus and require separate, fuller debate.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (532 words)
Wendy MortonQuestioningAldridge-Brownhills
Raising concerns about police funding adequacy, particularly questioning whether national insurance cost increases are properly funded and whether neighbourhood policing numbers represent genuine increases or redeployments.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,375 words)
Chris VinceSupportiveHarlow
Supporting the Bill's measures on neighbourhood policing, begging, and homelessness exploitation; praising new police officers in constituency and defending government record on police staffing.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (208 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