Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6
290Ayes
163Noes
Carried · majority 127 · Government won200 did not vote
653 Members · Aye 290 · No 163 · DNV 200 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 25 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 6 to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would have placed a statutory duty on a government department to notify victims about the unduly lenient sentence scheme, their right to request a review of sentences considered too short. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 290 votes to 163. The unduly lenient sentence scheme gives victims and prosecutors 28 days to ask the Attorney General to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal for review. Lords Amendment 6 aimed to ensure victims are formally told this right exists within that window. The government argued the amendment would duplicate duties already contained in the victims code and that placing a parallel obligation on an unspecified department would create confusion about where responsibility lies. Ministers committed instead to bringing forward their own workable legislative solution. Voting split cleanly along party lines. All 287 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported rejecting the amendment. All 84 Conservative MPs who voted, all 58 Liberal Democrats, all 4 Greens, all 3 Plaid Cymru members, all 3 Democratic Unionist Party members, and 2 Reform UK members who voted opposed the government. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. This was one of six Lords amendment divisions held on the same day, all of which the government won by similar margins.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting the government's argument that a parallel statutory notification duty would duplicate the victims code and create confusion, while trusting ministers' commitment to deliver a better legislative solution on the unduly lenient sentence scheme.
Voting No meant
Support keeping the Lords amendment, which would have given victims a statutory right to be told about the unduly lenient sentence scheme, ensuring families like that of murder victim Sasha Marsden are not left unaware of their right to challenge sentences within 28 days.
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
265
0
96
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
84
32
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
57
14
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
22
0
20
Independent
—
3
6
4
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
2
6
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
1
1
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
Government opposes all Lords amendments as unworkable in current form, but committed to bringing forward improved legislation on transcripts and ULS scheme after consultation and operational assessment.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,839 words) →
Supports Lords amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as necessary for transparency, victims' rights, and access to justice; criticises Government for blocking sensible reforms despite claiming to support victims.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,700 words) →
Welcomes the Bill's victims focus but confused why Government rejects Lords amendments 1 and 3 on court transcripts when the sentiment aligns with stated objectives.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (117 words) →
Criticises Government for inconsistent messaging: claiming to support victims while voting against amendments that would empower them; highlights contradictions between stated commitments and legislative actions.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,122 words) →
Supports all Lords amendments, particularly on free court transcripts, ULS scheme reform, and victims code for overseas homicides; urges Government to implement quickly.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (955 words) →
Supports Lords amendment 2 on victims code for overseas homicides; emphasises statutory protections needed because guidance alone is insufficient and inconsistently applied.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,712 words) →
Supports Government's Bill but urges reconsideration of Lords amendments 5 and 6 on ULS scheme; argues 28-day deadline is too short for traumatised families despite improved notification.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (816 words) →
Supports Government rejection of Lords amendments 4 and 7; argues Lord Chancellor needs power to regulate private prosecution costs to control public spending.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (445 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0