The topic lensIssue · 48 divisions tagged · 14 parties active

Crime & Policing.

TopicCrime & Policing
Sub-topicsPolicing · Knife Crime · Fraud · Prisons
Divisions tagged
48
This parliament
Parties active
14
≥1 vote tagged
Most on-whip
Liberal Democrats
79% aligned
Recent activity
10
Most-recent divisions
§ 01Where the parties sit on crime & policing.48 divisions · this parliament

Each row is one party. The bar shows how its MPs voted relative to a neutral midpoint — to the right = on-side with the majority position, to the left = opposed. The percentage figure is the share of that party’s MPs who took the same side: higher = more whip-disciplined, closer to 50% = a freer vote.

PartyStance vs neutral midpointNet %Discipline
Labour PartyLab
-1733% on-whip · 360 MPs
Conservative and Unionist PartyCon
+959% on-whip · 113 MPs
Liberal DemocratsLD
+2979% on-whip · 71 MPs
Labour and Co-operative PartyLab
-1535% on-whip · 42 MPs
IndependentInd
+454% on-whip · 14 MPs
Reform UKRef
+1262% on-whip · 8 MPs
Green Party of England and WalesGrn
+2070% on-whip · 5 MPs
Democratic Unionist PartyDUP
+454% on-whip · 5 MPs

Source · Hansard · alignment is the share of party MPs who voted with the party majority on tagged divisions

§ 02Recent crime & policing divisions.last 5 · of 48 tagged
DateMotionAyeNoCarried
25 Mar 2026Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1
Aye: Support the government's decision to reject the Lords amendment, accepting that free court transcripts for victims are desirable in principle but not yet operationally feasible to guarantee by statute within 14 days. · No: Support the Lords amendment giving victims a statutory right to free court transcripts of verdicts and bail decisions within 14 days, arguing the government is blocking transparency and leaving victims without basic information.
293160Yes
25 Mar 2026Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 4
Aye: Support keeping the Lord Chancellor's power to cap private prosecution cost recovery from central funds, arguing it is needed to prevent inequity in the justice system and control public expenditure. · No: Oppose removing the Lords amendment, arguing that Clause 12 undermines access to justice and that the Lords were right to delete it from the Bill.
299151Yes
25 Mar 2026Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6
Aye: Support rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting the government's argument that a parallel statutory notification duty would duplicate the victims code and create confusion, while trusting ministers' commitment to deliver a better legislative solution on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. · No: Support keeping the Lords amendment, which would have given victims a statutory right to be told about the unduly lenient sentence scheme, ensuring families like that of murder victim Sasha Marsden are not left unaware of their right to challenge sentences within 28 days.
290160Yes
25 Mar 2026Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3
Aye: Support the government's decision to reject the Lords amendment, arguing that delivering free sentencing remarks for all victims should come first and that the 14-day transcript entitlement is not currently deliverable by courts. · No: Support the Lords amendment giving victims a legal right to free court transcripts within 14 days, arguing it is essential for transparency, victim dignity, and accountability in the criminal justice system.
287165Yes
25 Mar 2026Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5
Aye: Support rejecting the Lords amendment on the unduly lenient sentence deadline extension, accepting the Government's argument that the drafting is legally flawed and a better version will follow · No: Oppose overriding the Lords, backing the amendment that would allow victims more time to challenge sentences they believe are too lenient, particularly where they were not informed of their rights within the 28-day window
289162Yes

All 48 divisions on this issue →

§ 03MPs most aligned, by party.Top-3 most-on-whip per major party

By party, the MPs whose voting record on crime & policing is most closely tracking the party majority. A fuller “most active by speech volume + written questions” ranking is pending — needs per-issue speech aggregation.

§ 04Where crime & policing money lands.Council-service mapping pending
Pending — issue-to-service mapping

Mapping each Westminster issue to the equivalent council service bucket (so “Crime & Policing” → the matching service line on council finance, with the ranked-spend table this section wants) is its own taxonomy job. Council service spend lives on the council pages today; cross-cut by issue here in a follow-on pass.

§ 05Sources for research.Library briefings · divisions · evidence sessions

The primary material behind this topic, assembled for anyone writing about it: House of Commons Library briefings (Open Parliament Licence), the divisions tagged to it, and recent committee evidence. Every item links to its source. Want it worked into a question you actually have? Commission a research briefing.

Loading sources…

§ 06The record, in order.Votes · briefings · evidence, by date

What the parliamentary record shows on this topic, in date order — each vote, Library briefing and evidence session, linked to the primary item. A record of what happened, not a commentary on it.

Loading the record…

Sources, methods & last update
Issue taggingEach division is tagged to one or more issues by Claude classification, reviewed by topic admins.
VotingHansard division lists · Commons Votes API
AlignmentShare of party MPs voting with the party majority on tagged divisions
CohortThis parliament · 48 divisions