A divisionDivision No. 250 · Wednesday, 2 July 2025· Commons· Crime & Policing

Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025

333Ayes
168Noes
Carried · majority 165 · Government won
149 did not vote
Aye332No168DID NOT VOTE · 149

650 Members · Aye 333 · No 168 · DNV 149 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 2 July 2025, the House of Commons voted to approve the Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025. The motion passed by 333 votes to 168. The order amends the existing rules governing when prisoners who have been released on licence can be recalled to custody, specifically making it easier to return certain offenders to prison on a fixed-term recall basis if they breach the conditions of their release. Fixed-term recall is a mechanism that allows probation authorities to return a released prisoner to jail for a set period, typically 28 days, rather than keeping them inside until the end of their sentence. The order expands the criteria under which this shorter, fixed-term route can be used, affecting how the probation service and prison authorities manage people released early on licence. In practical terms, this means more recalled prisoners could be returned to custody more quickly and for a defined period, with implications for prison population management, public protection, and the workload of probation services. The vote sits within a wider government effort to reform the early release and recall system following controversy over automatic release policies. The vote divided sharply along government-versus-opposition lines, with all 326 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voting in favour and no Conservative, Liberal Democrat, or Reform UK members supporting the measure. Notably, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both voted against, as did Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party, and the Ulster Unionist Party, suggesting that the opposition to the order crossed the usual left-right divide. Three Green MPs and three independents joined the government in the aye lobby, a small but visible cross-party element. The vote comes alongside the passage of the broader Sentencing Bill at second reading in September 2025, indicating that this order forms part of a larger legislative programme on sentencing and prisoner release reform.

Voting Aye meant
Support changing recall-to-custody rules to allow more automatic early release, accepting this as a necessary measure to manage the prison capacity crisis
Voting No meant
Oppose loosening the criteria for early release of recalled prisoners, arguing it is a short-sighted and potentially dangerous response to overcrowding that puts public safety at risk
§ 01Who voted how.501 voting Members · 149 absent

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
291
0
70
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
87
29
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
35
0
7
Independent
3
3
7
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
1
0
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

§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0