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
Parliament voted on 30 April 2025 to reject Amendment 4 to the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-Sentence Reports) Bill, which would have prevented the Sentencing Council from framing guidelines about pre-sentence reports by reference to trauma experienced by defendants from groups with a history of racism or discrimination, whether passed down across generations or suffered directly as a result of racism. The amendment was defeated by 226 votes to 88. The Bill itself prohibits the Sentencing Council from issuing guidelines that direct pre-sentence reports according to an offender's personal characteristics such as race, religion or cultural background. Amendment 4 would have added a further prohibition, specifically targeting references to intergenerational or historical trauma linked to racism or discrimination as a factor in pre-sentence report decisions. Supporters argued that existing Ministry of Justice bail guidance already advises courts to consider trauma experienced by relatives of defendants who faced racism, which they said undermined equality before the law. The vote split almost entirely along party lines. All 81 Conservative MPs who voted supported the amendment, joined by three Reform UK MPs, two Democratic Unionist Party MPs, and one Traditional Unionist Voice MP. Every Labour, Labour and Co-operative, Plaid Cymru, Green, and Independent MP who voted opposed it. The government's position was that a broader review of the Sentencing Council, announced by the Lord Chancellor, was the appropriate vehicle for addressing these questions rather than fast-tracked, piecemeal additions to an already narrow Bill.
Voting Aye meant
Support prohibiting sentencing guidelines from referencing intergenerational or historical trauma linked to racism or discrimination as a factor in pre-sentence report decisions, on the grounds that all defendants must be treated as individuals regardless of group identity.
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment as premature, preferring to address questions about trauma and personal history through a comprehensive review of the Sentencing Council rather than piecemeal additions to fast-tracked legislation.
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
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
28
14
Independent
—
0
4
9
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
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 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