Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 357

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 14 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 357 to the Crime and Policing Bill, passing the motion to disagree by 278 votes to 73. The amendment, passed by the House of Lords, would have removed the so-called "historical safeguard" from the offence of encouraging terrorism. That safeguard currently protects people from prosecution when discussing terrorist acts by proscribed organisations in contexts that could be characterised as legitimate political or historical commentary. **Why it matters:** The vote preserves existing protections built into terrorism law that distinguish between genuinely glorifying or encouraging violence and engaging in political or academic debate about past events. Removing the safeguard, as the Lords wanted, would have made it easier to prosecute individuals who speak approvingly of acts carried out by banned organisations, even where the context is historical or political rather than incitement to future violence. The government argued the change would risk criminalising a wide range of legitimate discourse, including discussion of conflicts where the moral status of armed groups remains genuinely contested. **The politics:** The division did not follow normal government-versus-opposition lines. All 277 Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. The Liberal Democrats, with 61 votes against, provided the bulk of opposition, joined by the Democratic Unionist Party (5), Plaid Cymru (3), and smaller unionist and nationalist groupings. Notably the Conservatives are entirely absent from the breakdown, suggesting they either abstained en masse or were not present. The vote is one of several exchanges between Commons and Lords on this bill, with further ping-pong (the process by which the two Houses exchange amendments until agreement is reached) continuing into a session on 20 April 2026.