Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-Sentence Reports) Bill: Amendment 3
86Ayes
222Noes
Defeated · majority 136 · Government won338 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 86 · No 222 · DNV 338 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The House of Commons voted on 30 April 2025 on Amendment 3 to the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-Sentence Reports) Bill. The amendment proposed changes to the circumstances in which pre-sentence reports must be prepared before a court imposes a sentence. It was defeated by 222 votes to 86, with the government opposing it. Pre-sentence reports are documents prepared by probation services that give courts information about an offender's background, circumstances, and rehabilitation prospects before sentencing. Amendment 3 sought to expand the situations in which these reports would be mandatory, with supporters arguing this would lead to more informed and proportionate sentencing. Opponents argued that broadening mandatory reporting requirements would place additional strain on an already stretched probation service and slow court proceedings, potentially adding to the significant backlog in the criminal justice system. The vote divided largely along government versus opposition lines, with Conservative MPs providing the bulk of the 86 ayes alongside a small number of Reform UK and Democratic Unionist Party members. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously against, joined by Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and independents. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. The Bill itself sits in a broader political context in which the government has been navigating tensions between court efficiency, sentencing consistency, and rehabilitation, with the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-Sentence Reports) Bill representing one of several pieces of criminal justice legislation moving through Parliament in this period.
Voting Aye meant
Support giving the Justice Secretary a veto and redrafting power over Sentencing Council guidelines on pre-sentence reports, increasing ministerial control over the guidelines process
Voting No meant
Oppose extending ministerial control this far, arguing it risks politicising judicial sentencing and goes beyond the scope of the bill's intended reforms
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 whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
183
178
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
80
0
36
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
28
14
Independent
—
0
4
9
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
2
0
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
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
—
0
0
1
Your Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Supports Bill principle but amendments 1 & 2 would narrow 'personal characteristics' to 'demographic cohorts' to protect guidance on disabilities and circumstances; opposes amendment 3 as incompatible with Sentencing Council independence.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,738 words) →
Opposes Bill; argues guidelines simply ensured judges had maximum information and racial disparities in sentencing are real; contends Council did not suggest treating defendants differently by ethnicity alone.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (505 words) →
Opposes Bill; concerned about retrospective effect on existing guidelines, scope creep, and threat to judicial independence; seeks clarification on which guidelines become unlawful and why non-exhaustive definition of 'personal characteristics'.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,243 words) →
Strongly supports Bill and amendments 3 & 4; argues Sentencing Council made serious error proposing differential treatment by ethnic/religious identity; amendment 3 provides necessary democratic oversight.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (982 words) →
Opposes Bill as rushed, populist, micromanaging; defends Sentencing Council's evidence-based approach; warns delay harms women, pregnant people, families; calls Bill 'Trumpian' executive order-style interference.Green · Voted no · Read full speech (1,676 words) →
Opposes Bill; argues it entrenches two-tier justice by ignoring disparities documented by Sentencing Council Chair and Lammy review; compares to evidence-based health interventions for minorities.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (715 words) →
Opposes Bill as knee-jerk and rushed; supports universality of pre-sentence reports; backs new clause 1 for independent review; criticises shadow Justice Secretary for culture war and undermining judges.Liberal Democrats · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,326 words) →
Supports Bill and both amendments; argues Sentencing Council showed poor judgment and lack of restraint; amendment 3 restores democratic accountability; amendment 4 prevents identity politics in sentencing.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,528 words) →
Defends Bill as narrowly focused safeguard for equality before law; explains clause 1 prevents differential treatment by personal characteristics without affecting individual sentencing discretion or Court of Appeal precedent.Labour (Minister) · Voted no · Read full speech (3,667 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0