Draft Home Detention Curfew and Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods (Amdt) Order 2024
424Ayes
106Noes
Carried · majority 318 · Government won120 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 424 · No 106 · DNV 120 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 10 December 2024, the House of Commons voted to approve the Draft Home Detention Curfew and Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods (Amendment) Order 2024. The motion passed by 424 votes to 106. The order amends the rules governing Home Detention Curfew (HDC), the scheme that allows eligible prisoners to be released early on electronic tagging, and adjusts the minimum and required portions of custodial sentences that prisoners must serve before becoming eligible for release. The practical effect of this order is to expand the scope for early release from prison, reducing the portion of a sentence that must be served in custody before HDC or standard release becomes available. The government has framed these changes as a necessary response to severe prison overcrowding in England and Wales. Critics argue the changes compromise public safety and undermine the deterrent and punitive value of sentences handed down by the courts, since offenders would serve a smaller share of their custodial term than originally intended. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 310 Labour MPs and 34 Labour and Co-operative MPs voted in favour, joined by all 64 Liberal Democrats, all four Green MPs, and all three Plaid Cymru members. The Conservatives provided all but a handful of the opposition, with 97 voting against, alongside five Democratic Unionist Party members, three Reform UK members, and one Ulster Unionist. No Conservative voted in favour. The order sits within a broader government drive to manage prison capacity, and comes the day after a separate division on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill in which the government defeated an opposition new clause by 340 votes to 89, reflecting the government's commanding Commons majority across criminal justice matters in this parliamentary session.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's changes to early release and home curfew rules, accepting adjustments to sentence thresholds as a necessary measure to manage prison capacity
Voting No meant
Oppose loosening early release and home detention curfew rules, arguing the changes risk public safety or undermine the principle that sentences handed down by courts should be served in full
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
310
0
51
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
97
19
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
64
0
8
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
34
0
8
Independent
—
5
2
7
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
3
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
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
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Your Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Moved all four statutory instrument motions for approval on behalf of the government.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0