The draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024
323Ayes
81Noes
Carried · majority 242 · Government won244 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 323 · No 81 · DNV 244 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 25 July 2024, the House of Commons voted to approve the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024. The motion passed by 323 votes to 81. The Order changes the rules governing how much of a prison sentence certain offenders must serve in custody before becoming eligible for release on licence (a form of supervised release in the community). The Order reduces the standard proportion of a sentence that most offenders must serve in custody from one-half to two-fifths of their sentence, with some categories of serious offenders excluded from the change. In practical terms, this means eligible prisoners could be released earlier into the community under supervision. The government argued this was necessary to relieve severe pressure on an overcrowded prison system, while opponents argued it risks public safety by releasing offenders sooner and undermines the deterrent effect of sentencing. The vote divided sharply along party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously in favour (319 combined), joined by the Greens and one independent. All 74 Conservative MPs who voted opposed the measure, alongside all five Reform UK MPs who voted and two Democratic Unionist Party members. There were no notable cross-party rebels in either direction. The vote came just weeks into the new Labour government's first term, reflecting both an inherited prison capacity crisis and a deliberate policy choice to prioritise supervised release over indefinite custody.
Voting Aye meant
Support reducing the minimum proportion of a sentence prisoners must serve before early release, as an emergency measure to address prison capacity
Voting No meant
Oppose reducing minimum custodial periods, arguing it undermines public safety, victims' confidence, and the integrity of court-imposed sentences
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
289
0
72
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
74
42
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
2
1
11
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
2
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
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
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
The measure is a necessary emergency response to prevent total collapse of the criminal justice system by September; it includes strict safeguards, exclusions for serious offences, and a review at 18 months—without a sunset clause to avoid irresponsible gimmicks.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (5,286 words) →
While recognising prison pressures, the Opposition is deeply troubled by the lack of detail, unclear exclusions that may catch serious offences like GBH, absence of a sunset clause, and insufficient information on resources for probation, police, and housing services.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,443 words) →
Supports the measure as the only realistic option; welcomes the government's intent and calls for additional long-term action on court delays, reoffending, remand population, and IPP prisoners.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,399 words) →
Recognises this is probably the only option available to the government but expresses concern about high reoffending rates and calls for clearer reporting, systemic court reform, and improved rehabilitation and community supervision.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,321 words) →
Strongly supports the measure as necessary and proportionate; criticises the Opposition for inaction and gimmicks, and emphasises the need for long-term change including prison reform and reoffending reduction.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,362 words) →
Expresses grave public safety concerns; questions whether alternatives were considered, seeks clarity on victim protections, impacts on local services, financial implications of the £2.2 billion prison-building saving, and calls for a sunset clause.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,435 words) →
Opposes the measure on principle, arguing prison is fundamentally about punishment; advocates for building more prisons (including 'Fry prisons'), tackling remand numbers and foreign national offenders, and proposes a sunset clause as substance for the government's promises.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (931 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0