Sentencing Bill Committee: Clause 1, as amended, stand part
389
Ayes
—
102
Noes
Passed · Government won
159 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 21 October 2025 to approve Clause 1 of the Sentencing Bill as amended, establishing the core framework of the government's sentencing reform programme. The motion passed by 389 votes to 102, a majority of 287. The vote took place at committee of the whole House stage, meaning the entire House was scrutinising the Bill clause by clause rather than the work being delegated to a smaller committee room. **Why it matters:** Clause 1 sets out the foundational sentencing powers or procedures that the rest of the Bill builds upon. By passing this clause, the House approved the central architecture of the government's approach to sentencing reform, which affects how courts sentence offenders, how prisons manage their populations, and ultimately who is imprisoned and for how long. The vote advances a significant piece of criminal justice legislation at a time when prison capacity and sentencing consistency are live policy concerns. **The politics:** The vote divided sharply along party lines. Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and Co-operative MPs, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens all voted in favour, giving the government a commanding majority. Conservatives, the Democratic Unionist Party, and Reform UK voted against, with 90 Conservative and 5 DUP and 4 Reform votes in opposition. No Labour or Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the government. Four independents supported the clause while three opposed it, suggesting no significant cross-party rebellion against the government's position. The result sits within a broader pattern visible in related divisions on the Bill, where subsequent Report Stage votes in late October and early November saw opposition amendments attracting around 170 votes, well short of the government's majority.
Voting Aye meant
Support keeping the clause that requires courts to presume short sentences (under 12 months) should be suspended rather than served immediately in prison
Voting No meant
Oppose the clause, arguing it wrongly restricts judicial discretion and will result in fewer offenders going to prison when they should
491 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 159 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
285
0
77
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
90
26
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
63
0
9
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
26
0
16
Independent
4
3
6
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
—
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
—
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
—
Your Party
1
0
—
Opposes the Bill as fundamentally undermining law and order by forcing suspended sentences when imprisonment is appropriate; advocates for narrower application of presumption and tougher exclusions for serious offences including knife crime.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (4,517 words) →
Defends the Bill against accusations that it undermines law and order; argues the previous Conservative government nearly collapsed the prison system through poor management.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (255 words) →
Supports McVey's position that the Bill is worse than the previous approach; argues active prison management was preferable to reducing incarceration.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (186 words) →
Concerned that the Bill removes deterrent effect for knife crime; argues sentencing must be carried out and deterrents maintained, citing tragic family impacts in constituencies.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (95 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0