Division · No. 410Tuesday, 20 January 2026Commons Crime & Policing

Sentencing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 7

319
Ayes
127
Noes
Passed · Government won
203 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 20 January 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 7 to the Sentencing Bill, passing the motion to disagree by 319 votes to 127. The amendment, proposed by the House of Lords, had sought to place a statutory duty on the judiciary to approve the release of Crown Court sentencing transcripts. In place of the Lords amendment, the government tabled its own alternative provisions (amendments (a) and (b) in lieu), which instead require sentencing remarks to be provided free of charge to victims who request them, without imposing the broader judicial approval duty the Lords had proposed. **Why it matters:** The practical effect of the Commons decision is that victims of crime will receive free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks on request, a change from the previous position in which transcripts could cost thousands of pounds. One case highlighted in the debate involved a constituent who was charged £7,000 for the transcript of the trial in which her rapist was convicted. The government argued that the Lords amendment as drafted would have added significant workload to the judiciary and risked worsening the existing Crown Court backlog, which currently stands at around 77,000 to 78,000 outstanding cases. The government's alternative formulation was designed to deliver transparency for victims while avoiding that administrative burden. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 315 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, while all 100 voting Conservatives opposed the government, joining Reform UK, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and several independents in the No lobby. The Liberal Democrats, though not listed in the party breakdown as a bloc, indicated support for the government's amendment in lieu through their spokesperson, who welcomed it as a meaningful step for victims. The Sentencing Bill was at the final stage of its parliamentary passage, with the Minister confirming that, subject to agreement in both Houses, the Bill would shortly become law. The vote sits within a broader pattern of the government using its Commons majority to resist Lords amendments across criminal justice legislation, as seen in related divisions on the Victims and Courts Bill in March 2026.

Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment requiring free court transcripts of sentencing remarks within 14 days, preferring the government's own alternative approach
Voting No meant
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
§ 01Who voted how.446 voting members · 203 absent
Aye318No128DID NOT VOTE · 203

446 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 203 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
282
0
80
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
100
16
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
33
0
9
Independent
3
7
3
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
5
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
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
0
1
§ 02From the debate.6 principal speakers
Jake RichardsSupportiveRother Valley
Supports Lords amendments with Government amendments in lieu on transcripts; defends sentencing reforms as necessary to address inherited crisis; rejects criticism that measures are soft on crime.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,259 words)
Dr Kieran MullanOpposedBexhill and Battle
Welcomes whole-life orders amendment and victim transcript access but fundamentally opposes the Bill's sentencing reductions, calling them 'catastrophic' for victims and representing a dangerous retreat from public protection.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,875 words)
Jess Brown-FullerSupportiveChichester
Supports victim transcript provisions and prison capacity oversight; welcomes cross-party collaboration; seeks clarification on victim definition, exceptions, and suggests amendments could go further.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,241 words)
Amanda MartinSupportivePortsmouth North
Strongly supports the Bill as essential reform addressing inherited crisis; emphasizes prison building, community restrictions, and victim-focused measures including tool theft protections.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,553 words)
Sally JamesonSupportiveDoncaster Central
Supports the Bill as transformational reform; defends sentencing reductions as necessary alongside prison expansion; praises whole-life order amendments and staff protections.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (742 words)
Sarah OlneySupportiveRichmond Park
Welcomes free transcript provision as victory for campaign on victim access; thanks Minister for progress on long-standing victim advocacy issue.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (122 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0