Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-Sentence Reports) Bill: Amendment 4
88Ayes
226Noes
Defeated · majority 138 · Government won334 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 88 · No 226 · DNV 334 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The House of Commons voted on Amendment 4 to the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-Sentence Reports) Bill on 30 April 2025. The amendment, which sought to expand the requirement for detailed pre-sentence reports to inform judicial sentencing decisions, was defeated by 226 votes to 88. The government opposed the amendment. Pre-sentence reports are documents prepared by the Probation Service that give judges information about an offender's background, circumstances, and likelihood of reoffending before a sentence is passed. Expanding the requirement for these reports, as the amendment proposed, would have meant more offenders receiving detailed assessments before sentencing. Supporters argued this approach promotes rehabilitation and more proportionate sentencing. The government's opposition meant that the Bill would proceed without the additional mandatory reporting requirements the amendment sought to introduce, affecting how courts across England and Wales handle sentencing information. The vote produced an unusual cross-party alignment. The Conservatives provided 81 of the 88 ayes, joined by three Reform UK MPs, two Democratic Unionist Party members, and one Traditional Unionist Voice MP. Every Labour, Labour and Co-operative, Plaid Cymru, Green, and most Independent MPs voted no, with the government's position holding firm. The scale of the defeat, 226 to 88, reflected the government's comfortable Commons majority. The Bill sits within a broader legislative environment that includes the Crime and Policing Bill and recent votes on criminal justice orders, signalling continued parliamentary activity around sentencing and offender management in this session.
Voting Aye meant
Support giving the Secretary of State power to block Sentencing Council guidelines on pre-sentence reports, ensuring ministerial accountability and preventing guidelines that could create differential treatment by ethnicity or religion
Voting No meant
Oppose giving the Secretary of State a veto over Sentencing Council guidelines, preferring the government's own approach to reforming pre-sentence report guidelines without requiring explicit ministerial consent
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
186
175
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
81
0
35
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
28
14
Independent
—
0
5
8
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
3
0
4
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 aye · 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