Division · No. 491Monday, 20 April 2026Commons Crime and Policing

Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Reason 342B

294
Ayes
61
Noes
Passed · Government won
292 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** On 20 April 2026, the House of Commons voted 294 to 61 to insist on its disagreement with Lords Amendment 342 relating to the Crime and Policing Bill, while simultaneously proposing new amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of the Lords' original amendment. This motion was part of a series of votes on the same day as the Bill moved through the final stages of parliamentary ping-pong (the process by which the two Houses exchange amendments until they reach agreement). The specific division voted on here concerned Lords Reason 342B, the Lords' justification for maintaining their position on Amendment 342, which related to youth diversion orders. **Why it matters:** Amendment 342 and its successors concern the conditions attached to youth diversion orders, specifically whether police and other agencies should be legally required to consult with a defined range of organisations before applying for such an order. The Lords pushed for a mandatory duty to consult; the Government's position, reflected in the amendments it proposed in lieu, was that statutory guidance could direct police to consider such consultations without creating a hard legal obligation. In practical terms, this distinction matters for how diversion away from prosecution is handled for young people, and whether organisations such as youth services or social care bodies have a guaranteed role in the process or only an advisory one. **The politics:** Labour MPs voted unanimously in favour, providing the entire Aye majority, while Liberal Democrats (56 votes), the Greens (4) and Plaid Cymru (3) voted against, reflecting their support for the Lords' more stringent approach. Notably, the Conservatives did not vote at all, with all 116 of their MPs absent, as was the entire SNP group. This was one of four outstanding disputes with the Lords resolved on 20 April, and the Government framed it as the final stage of a 14-month legislative process in which the Commons had already accepted the large majority of Lords changes.

Voting Aye meant
Support the Commons position in rejecting or disagreeing with the Lords' reasoning on amendment 342B to the Crime and Policing Bill
Voting No meant
Support the Lords' position or reasoning on amendment 342B, opposing the Commons majority view
§ 01Who voted how.355 voting members · 292 absent
Aye295No63DID NOT VOTE · 292

355 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 292 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
261
0
101
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
56
16
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
33
0
9
Independent
1
0
12
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
0
5
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
1
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1
Your Party
0
0
1
§ 02From the debate.7 principal speakers
Sarah JonesSupportiveCroydon West
Government Minister defending four amendments in lieu that strengthen but do not fully adopt Lords amendments; resists pressure to mandate IRGC proscription and wider consultation on youth diversion orders, citing established principles and existing statutory guidance powers.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,263 words)
Matt VickersOpposedStockton West
Opposition spokesperson arguing the Bill misses opportunities on fly-tipping vehicle seizure and criticising Government inaction on IRGC proscription despite Labour's prior opposition promises; challenges the utility of existing powers.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,650 words)
Max WilkinsonOpposedCheltenham
Liberal Democrat spokesperson opposing Government amendments in lieu as insufficiently strong; seeks outright ban on profit-driven fixed penalties and mandatory language on youth diversion consultations, while supporting Conservative fly-tipping amendment.Liberal Democrats · Voted no · Read full speech (823 words)
Chris VinceSupportiveHarlow
Government backbencher acknowledging fly-tipping's serious impact but supporting the Minister's position that existing police and local authority powers are adequate with better enforcement and rural crime strategy.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,045 words)
Amanda MartinSupportivePortsmouth North
Government backbencher from Portsmouth supporting the Bill's provisions on fixed penalties and fly-tipping; emphasises need for prompt statutory guidance and local authority confidence to enforce existing powers.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (863 words)
Jim ShannonQuestioningStrangford
Backbencher questioning freedom of speech implications in public order legislation and strongly supporting immediate IRGC proscription given recent executions and security threats.DUP · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (222 words)
Adam JogeeSupportiveNewcastle-under-Lyme
Government backbencher from Newcastle-under-Lyme emphasising constituent concerns about fly-tipping's corrosive impact on communities and seeking confirmation that statutory guidance will empower council enforcement.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (580 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