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
Parliament voted on 30 April 2025 to reject Conservative Amendment 3 to the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-Sentence Reports) Bill, which would have required the Sentencing Council to obtain the Justice Secretary's consent before issuing any sentencing guidelines relating to pre-sentence reports, and would have given the minister the power to rewrite such guidelines. The amendment was defeated by 222 votes to 86. The Bill itself bans the Sentencing Council from framing pre-sentence report guidelines by reference to an offender's personal characteristics, including race, religion or belief, and cultural background. Amendment 3 would have gone further, placing all future pre-sentence report guidelines under ministerial veto. Its defeat means the Sentencing Council retains its operational independence for that broader category of guidance, with only the specific prohibition on characteristic-based cohort guidelines now in law. The vote divided cleanly along party lines. All 80 recorded Conservative votes backed the amendment, joined by 4 Reform UK MPs, 2 Democratic Unionist Party MPs, and 1 Traditional Unionist Voice MP. All 183 recorded Labour votes, all 28 Labour and Co-operative votes, all 4 Plaid Cymru votes, all 3 Green votes, 3 independents, and 2 Your Party MPs voted against. The Bill itself passed without the amendment, reflecting a deliberate government choice to legislate narrowly rather than extend ministerial control over sentencing guidance more broadly.
Voting Aye meant
Support giving the Justice Secretary a veto over Sentencing Council guidelines on pre-sentence reports, to ensure democratic oversight of a body that has shown poor judgment on equality before the law.
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment as going too far — accepting the main Bill's targeted ban on race-based PSR guidelines while rejecting broader ministerial control over all PSR-related guidance, which would improperly politicise judicial sentencing.
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
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
28
14
Independent
—
0
3
10
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
Your Party
—
0
2
0
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
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