Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Second Reading
330Ayes
275Noes
Carried · majority 5542 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 330 · No 275 · DNV 42 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The House of Commons voted on 29 November 2024 to give the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill its Second Reading, passing by 330 votes to 275. Second Reading is the first substantive vote on a bill, testing whether Parliament approves its general principles before detailed scrutiny begins. The Bill would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with a life expectancy of six months or less, to request assistance to end their own life, subject to sign-off by two doctors and a High Court judge. The vote means the Bill proceeds to committee stage, where MPs will examine and potentially amend its specific provisions. In practical terms, if the Bill ultimately becomes law, it would create a legal pathway for assisted dying in England and Wales for the first time, amending the Suicide Act 1961 to exempt compliant assistance from criminal liability. It would affect terminally ill patients, their families, doctors and other health professionals, and the courts, which would take on a new judicial oversight role. It would also establish conscientious objection protections for health professionals who do not wish to participate. This was a free vote, meaning MPs were not instructed by their parties and voted according to personal conscience. Labour MPs split 212 in favour and 134 against, with 15 no vote recorded. Conservative MPs voted 23 in favour and 88 against. The Liberal Democrats backed the Bill most heavily among larger parties, voting 61 to 11 in favour. The Democratic Unionist Party voted 5 to 0 against. The result is among the most significant on a social and ethical issue in Parliament for many years, coming nearly a decade after the House last debated assisted dying on the floor of the Commons.
Voting Aye meant
Support giving terminally ill adults the legal right to choose an assisted death, with safeguards including medical and judicial oversight
Voting No meant
Oppose legalising assisted dying, citing concerns about coercion, the adequacy of safeguards, and the impact on vulnerable people
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
212
134
15
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
23
88
5
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
60
11
0
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
22
17
3
Independent
—
4
10
0
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
2
5
0
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
1
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
1
0
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Supports the Bill as essential to give terminally ill people choice and dignity, with robust safeguards (two doctors and a High Court judge) stronger than any other jurisdiction; argues the status quo is cruel and forces desperate measures.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (6,689 words) →
Opposes the Bill as fundamentally flawed; argues 'terminal illness' is too elastic, safeguards are inadequate, the six-month cut-off is arbitrary, the capacity test is weak, and the Bill will harm vulnerable and disabled people while eroding palliative care investment.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (4,314 words) →
Has reservations about the Bill despite not opposing assisted dying in principle; doubts the sufficiency of safeguards, warns of coercion risks and precedent from Canada, and argues palliative care should be prioritized before legislating on assisted dying.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (860 words) →
Strongly supports the Bill; changed his mind after hearing constituents' distressing end-of-life stories; emphasizes the current law forces people to die in secret and horror, and that 75% of the public backs this change.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (961 words) →
Supports the Bill; argues the current law offers no safeguards and that Parliament has a duty to legislate rather than rely on ex post facto prosecution guidelines; praises Leadbeater's measured approach.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,145 words) →
Questions the coercion safeguards; argues two clinicians cannot eliminate all risk of hidden coercion and that the six-month cut-off is arbitrary and vulnerable to legal challenge.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (243 words) →
Sympathetic but concerned about systemic coercion from financial burden; asks how the Bill ensures elderly people in care homes won't feel pressured to die to save family money.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (121 words) →
Opposed; warns that the Bill may follow the pattern of Belgium and Canada where assisted dying expanded beyond terminal illness to include dementia and children, asking whether safeguards are truly immutable.DUP · Voted no · Read full speech (98 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0