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
The House of Commons passed the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-Sentence Reports) Bill at its Third Reading on 30 April 2025. The vote was 214 in favour and 3 against, with the bill clearing this final Commons stage by an overwhelming margin. Third Reading is the last opportunity for the full House to approve or reject a bill before it moves to the House of Lords. The bill establishes new legal requirements governing pre-sentence reports in criminal cases. Pre-sentence reports are documents prepared by probation services that give judges information about a defendant's background, circumstances, and risk factors before a sentence is handed down. By placing new requirements around these reports in statute, the legislation seeks to make the use of such reports more consistent and evidence-based across the courts of England and Wales. The bill directly affects defendants, probation services, and the judiciary, and forms part of the government's broader approach to criminal justice reform. The vote was almost entirely a Labour affair, with 186 Labour MPs and 28 Labour and Co-operative MPs voting in favour and no opposition from any Conservative, Liberal Democrat, or other major party. The three votes against came from the Green Party. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were fully absent from the division, as were the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin. The near-unanimous passing margin, combined with the absence of the main opposition, gave the bill an uncontested passage at this stage, though the lack of engagement from opposition parties rather than active support meant the vote reflected attendance patterns as much as genuine cross-party consensus.
Voting Aye meant
Support passing the bill to limit the Sentencing Council's power to issue guidelines recommending pre-sentence reports based on demographic group membership, ensuring sentencing-related guidance does not differentiate by personal characteristics
Voting No meant
Oppose passing the bill, potentially arguing it is unnecessary, overly restrictive of the Sentencing Council's independence, or inadequate in addressing concerns about consistency in pre-sentence reports
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
72
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
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
Your 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