Motion to adjourn debate

Friday, 24 January 2025 · Division No. 91 · Commons

120Ayes

–

7Noes

Passed

519 MPs did not vote

proceduralGovernment wonPro Parliamentary Delay(Yes)Pro Continued Debate(No)Procedural Management(Yes)Anti Filibuster(No)

Voting Yes means

Support adjourning (pausing) the debate, effectively delaying further parliamentary consideration of the matter at hand.

Voting No means

Oppose adjourning the debate, preferring to continue proceedings without interruption.

What happened: On 24 January 2025, the House of Commons voted to adjourn debate on a motion by 120 votes to 7. The motion to adjourn was brought forward as a procedural step, postponing further parliamentary discussion to a later date. The government supported the adjournment, and the vote passed comfortably.

Why it matters: Procedurally, this vote determined the scheduling of further debate rather than resolving any underlying policy question. By adjourning, the House deferred continued discussion to another sitting day, meaning no immediate legislative or policy decision was reached on the matter under consideration. The practical effect was to manage parliamentary time, leaving the substantive issues for future consideration.

The politics: The vote divided almost entirely along party management lines rather than ideological ones. Labour and Labour and Co-operative members provided all 120 votes in favour of adjournment, reflecting the government's position. The seven votes against came from four Green Party members, one Conservative, and two Independents, suggesting a preference from a small group of members to continue debate immediately rather than defer it. No Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, DUP, or Sinn Fein members voted in either direction. With the vast majority of the House absent, this was a low-turnout procedural division typical of a sitting Friday.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye

105 Aye/0 No

Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye

16 Aye/0 No

Independent

1 Aye/4 No

Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No

0 Aye/4 No

Conservative and Unionist Party

0 Aye/1 No

What They Said in the Debate

Andrew Bowie

Conservative · West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

Opposed

Opposes the Bill; argues it would damage the economy, undermine parliamentary democracy by delegating power to an unelected assembly, impose unsustainable costs on households, and create energy security risks by banning domestic fossil fuels without viable alternatives.

Simon Hoare

Conservative · North Dorset

Supportive

Supports the Bill's general thrust on climate and nature; calls on fellow Conservatives to heed Margaret Thatcher's warnings on environmental protection rather than populist scepticism, while pressuring the government for a generous response.

Alice Macdonald

Labour · Norwich North

Supportive

Strongly supports the Bill; welcomes government measures on clean energy and nature protection, emphasises the urgency of the dual climate-nature crisis, and argues sustainable growth and environmental protection are compatible.

Voted Aye

Carla Denyer

Green · Bristol Central

Supportive

Supports the Bill and criticises the government's weak negotiating position; urges the Bill to go to a vote rather than accept vague commitments, arguing the science demands binding legislation and integrated climate-nature policy.

Voted No

Dr Roz Savage

Liberal Democrat · South Cotswolds

Supportive

As the Bill's sponsor, advocates a collaborative policy approach and cross-party consensus; defends her decision to negotiate with the government rather than push to a vote, framing it as more effective than protest activism.

Nadia Whittome

Labour · Nottingham East

Supportive

Supports the Bill as a floor not a ceiling; emphasises winning material concessions from the government through negotiation and holding them to account, rather than risking those gains by forcing a vote.

Josh Newbury

Labour · Cannock Chase

Supportive

Supports the Bill's principles on climate and nature; highlights government progress on renewable energy and water quality, emphasises the need for balanced farming support, and backs the government's commitment to halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030.

Voted Aye

Lizzi Collinge

Labour · Morecambe and Lunesdale

Supportive

Supports the Bill and the government's climate action; argues climate change poses existential threats to rural communities and that the transition should be framed as an opportunity for better homes, jobs, and access to nature.

Voted Aye