Division · No. 492Monday, 20 April 2026Commons Crime and Policing

Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating Lords Reasons 359B and 439B

292
Ayes
158
Noes
Passed · Government won
196 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted 292 to 158 on 20 April 2026 to insist on its disagreement with Lords amendments 359 and 439 to the Crime and Policing Bill, while proposing alternative amendments in lieu. This was one of four outstanding points of disagreement between the two chambers resolved in the same sitting, part of the parliamentary process known as "ping-pong," in which a bill travels back and forth between the Commons and the Lords until both houses agree on its final text. **Why it matters:** Lords amendments 359 and 439, which the Commons rejected in favour of its own substitute wording, concerned the proscription of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The Lords had pushed for the IRGC to be formally proscribed as a terrorist organisation under the bill. The government's position, reflected in the amendments it proposed in lieu, did not include that proscription, though the minister indicated that existing sanctions already restrict hundreds of Iranian individuals from entering the country or holding assets in the UK. The practical effect is that the IRGC will not be proscribed through this legislation, leaving that decision to the government's discretion rather than enshrining it in statute. **The politics:** The vote divided along clear party lines. All 293 Labour and Labour Co-operative members present voted with the government; all Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Democratic Unionists, Greens, Plaid Cymru members and the Traditional Unionist Voice representative voted against. The opposition's case, led by Conservative shadow minister Matt Vickers, was that the deteriorating security situation, including media-reported tracking of more than 20 Iran-backed plots in 2025 alone, made immediate proscription necessary. The government's response was that legislation must be properly prepared before such a step is taken. The vote formed part of a broader conclusion to the Crime and Policing Bill's passage after 14 months of parliamentary scrutiny.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position on Lords amendments 359B and 439B to the Crime and Policing Bill, likely rejecting or modifying the Lords' proposed changes
Voting No meant
Oppose the government's handling of these Lords amendments, likely preferring to accept the Lords' original changes to the bill
§ 01Who voted how.450 voting members · 196 absent
Aye294No160DID NOT VOTE · 196

450 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 196 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
261
0
101
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
91
25
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
55
17
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
32
0
10
Independent
1
2
10
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
4
1
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
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 · 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 · 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