Sentencing Guidelines Third Reading
214Ayes
3Noes
Carried · majority 211 · Government won429 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 214 · No 3 · DNV 429 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament passed the Sentencing Guidelines Bill at Third Reading on 30 April 2025, by 214 votes to 3. The Bill prevents the Sentencing Council from issuing guidelines that recommend pre-sentence reports be ordered on the basis of an offender's ethnicity, race, culture or faith, rather than on the individual circumstances of the case. The vote matters because it places a legal limit on what the Sentencing Council, the independent body that issues guidance to judges and magistrates, can direct sentencers to consider when deciding whether to commission a pre-sentence report. A pre-sentence report gathers information about an offender before a sentence is passed, and its presence or absence affects which sentencing options are available to a court. By barring demographic-group membership as a basis for ordering such reports, the Bill requires that decisions about pre-sentence reports rest on individual rather than group characteristics. The measure affects how courts approach sentencing preparation across England and Wales. The Bill passed with near-unanimous support from Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs, who provided all 214 of the votes in favour. The three votes against came from two Independents and three Green Party MPs. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the DUP, and several other smaller parties had no votes recorded. The debate showed broad cross-party agreement that the Sentencing Council had overstepped, though Diane Abbott, the Mother of the House, questioned whether the Bill was the right response, arguing that the Council had simply sought to give judges the fullest possible information before sentencing.
Voting Aye meant
Support passing the Sentencing Guidelines Bill, which bars the Sentencing Council from issuing guidelines that recommend pre-sentence reports based on an offender's ethnicity, race, culture or faith rather than individual circumstances
Voting No meant
Oppose passing the Bill in its current form, arguing it goes too far in restricting the Sentencing Council's independence or the information available to judges before 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 Aye
185
0
176
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
—
1
2
10
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
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 aye · 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 no_vote_recorded · 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 teller_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 no_vote_recorded · 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 aye · 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