Prisons
Prison system and rehabilitation
Based on 16 parliamentary votes
Related Crime & Policing Issues
How Parties Voted on Prisons
Government alignment shows how often each party voted with the government's stated position. Issue-aligned direction shows agreement with the AI-identified supportive stance.
Voted with government positionVoted in issue-aligned direction
Recent Votes
| Vote | Result | Date |
|---|---|---|
The Lords had amended the Sentencing Bill to require courts to provide free transcripts of judges' sentencing remarks within 14 days of a request, and to publish them online. The government rejected this Lords amendment, arguing it could increase judicial workload and worsen the Crown court backlog, proposing its own alternative amendments instead. Yes = Support rejecting the Lords amendment requiring free court transcripts of sentencing remarks within 14 days, preferring the government's own alternative approach · No = Support the Lords amendment giving victims and the public the right to free transcripts of sentencing remarks within 14 days, as proposed by the Conservatives in the Lords Govt: Aye | 318-128 | 20 Jan 2026 |
Vote on a series of new clauses to the Sentencing Bill, including proposals to re-sentence all prisoners serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences, remove anonymity for young people who commit serious crimes, and tighten sentencing for young offenders. The debate was prompted in part by the killing of Bhim Kohli by a 14-year-old, which raised questions about custodial sentences for young people. Yes = Support adding new provisions to the Sentencing Bill, including mandatory re-sentencing of IPP prisoners within 18 months and stricter sentencing for young offenders who commit serious crimes, including removing their anonymity · No = Oppose these new clauses, likely preferring to keep existing sentencing frameworks and the government's own approach to IPP reform and youth justice Govt: No | 172-328 | 29 Oct 2025 |
A vote on opposition-tabled new clauses to the Sentencing Bill, including a proposal to reform homicide law (New Clause 19) and to require the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences within 18 months (New Clause 2). The government opposed, citing an ongoing Law Commission review of homicide law and preferring not to legislate pre-emptively. Yes = Support pushing ahead with homicide law reform and mandatory re-sentencing of IPP prisoners now, rather than waiting for further reviews · No = Oppose legislating ahead of the Law Commission's homicide review, and reject the mandatory IPP re-sentencing timetable as proposed Govt: No | 173-321 | 29 Oct 2025 |
Vote on whether to create a 'child cruelty register' — a notification and offender management system for people convicted of child cruelty or neglect, similar to the sex offenders register. The proposal, championed by campaigners including Tony Hudgell and his adoptive mother Paula, would require those convicted of child abuse or neglect to register with authorities so they can be monitored. Yes = Support creating a child cruelty register to monitor and manage offenders convicted of child abuse or neglect, in the same way sex offenders are tracked · No = Oppose the child cruelty register as proposed, likely on grounds that existing measures are sufficient or that the proposal needs further development before being enshrined in law Govt: No | 184-309 | 29 Oct 2025 |
Vote on a new clause to the Sentencing Bill that would require the government to re-sentence all prisoners still serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences within 18 months, a controversial indefinite sentence abolished in 2012 but still affecting hundreds of prisoners. The government opposed the clause, saying it accepted the problem but needed more time to assess the practical impact on courts and probation services. Yes = Support mandating the government to re-sentence all remaining IPP prisoners within 18 months, providing a firm legal deadline to end a widely condemned form of indefinite imprisonment · No = Oppose imposing a statutory 18-month deadline for IPP re-sentencing, preferring the government to work at its own pace to address the issue without binding legislative commitments it may not be able to meet Govt: No | 84-312 | 29 Oct 2025 |
MPs voted on the final passage of the Sentencing Bill, which includes measures on sentencing reform and criminal justice. The debate also touched on issues such as parenting orders for parents of young offenders and the re-sentencing of prisoners serving the controversial Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences. Yes = Support passing the Sentencing Bill into law, including its provisions on sentencing reform, youth justice measures, and potentially addressing the IPP sentencing backlog · No = Oppose the Sentencing Bill in its current form, potentially arguing it does not go far enough on IPP reform, is too soft on crime, or raises other concerns about the legislation Govt: Aye | 320-103 | 29 Oct 2025 |
Vote on whether Clause 1 of the Sentencing Bill, which creates a presumption that courts must suspend short prison sentences rather than send offenders to immediate custody, should remain part of the Bill. Opponents like Esther McVey argued this would force judges to give even fewer immediate prison sentences, weakening the criminal justice system. Yes = Support keeping the clause that requires courts to presume short sentences (under 12 months) should be suspended rather than served immediately in prison · No = Oppose the clause, arguing it wrongly restricts judicial discretion and will result in fewer offenders going to prison when they should Govt: Aye | 386-104 | 21 Oct 2025 |
A vote on New Clause 30 to the Sentencing Bill at Committee stage, in the context of debate about short prison sentences and suspended sentences. The clause was defeated, with the government and its majority voting against it. Yes = Support introducing a new provision to the Sentencing Bill, likely restricting the use of short custodial sentences or strengthening presumptions in favour of suspended sentences · No = Oppose the new clause, preferring the existing Bill approach to sentencing reform without this additional provision Govt: No | 80-386 | 21 Oct 2025 |
Vote on a Conservative amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would require courts to collect and publish data on the nationality, visa route, and asylum status of offenders within 24 hours of sentencing, as part of broader debate about sentencing transparency and immigration-linked crime data. Yes = Support requiring courts to publish offender nationality and immigration status data, arguing it enables better-informed policy on borders and criminal justice · No = Oppose the mandatory collection and rapid publication of offender nationality/immigration status data, likely on grounds of practicality, privacy, or that it is unnecessary or divisive Govt: No | 106-319 | 21 Oct 2025 |
Vote on a Conservative amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would change the threshold for suspended sentences from 'not more than 12 months' to 'less than 12 months', effectively tightening the eligibility criteria. The broader debate concerned whether serious offenders (including those convicted of firearms or terror-related offences) should be able to receive suspended sentences under the Bill. Yes = Support tightening the suspended sentence threshold and limiting the Bill's scope so that serious offenders are less likely to avoid immediate custody · No = Oppose this amendment, backing the government's existing wording in the Sentencing Bill which retains the 'not more than 12 months' threshold for suspended sentences Govt: No | 106-379 | 21 Oct 2025 |
How is this calculated?
Government alignment (primary bar) shows how often a party's MPs voted with the government's stated position on this issue. This is the most comparable metric across parties, as it measures the same reference point for everyone.
Issue-aligned direction (secondary bar) shows how often MPs voted in the direction tagged as supportive of this issue by AI analysis. For example, if a vote is tagged “pro-environment”, a Yes vote counts as aligned. This can be misleading when the tagged direction happens to align with opposition amendments rather than government bills.
Why these metrics may differ: Opposition parties often vote against government bills for strategic or procedural reasons, even when they broadly support the policy area. The government alignment metric makes this clearer by showing the actual voting pattern against a consistent reference.
Source: Commons division data from the UK Parliament Votes API. Alignment direction determined by AI analysis of vote stance tags. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.