Closure motion
288Ayes
239Noes
Carried · majority 49 · Government won122 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 288 · No 239 · DNV 122 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 16 May 2025, the House of Commons voted on a closure motion, a procedural device that ends ongoing debate and forces an immediate vote on the matter under discussion. The motion passed by 288 votes to 239. The vote took place in the context of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which was undergoing parliamentary ping-pong (the back-and-forth process between the Commons and Lords when the two chambers disagree on amendments). By passing the closure motion, the Commons cut short debate and moved directly to a vote on the substantive issue before it. In practical terms, this prevented further parliamentary scrutiny of the Data (Use and Access) Bill at that stage, accelerating the bill's passage through Parliament. The bill concerns how data is collected, shared and used across public services and commercial settings, and affects a wide range of citizens, businesses and public bodies. The government secured the closure with the support of Labour, Labour and Co-operative, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Green MPs voting predominantly in favour. Conservatives voted heavily against, joined by most Independents, the Democratic Unionist Party, and the majority of Reform UK members. The result reflects a government coalition broadly aligned with the Liberal Democrats on this legislation, with the official opposition and smaller unionist parties opposing the curtailment of debate. The vote sits within a sustained period of parliamentary activity on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, with several related divisions in the weeks immediately before and after, indicating a contested and protracted legislative process.
Voting Aye meant
Support ending debate and proceeding to a vote, typically backed by the government or those wishing to move business forward
Voting No meant
Oppose curtailing debate, typically backed by those wishing to continue discussing the matter — often the opposition seeking more scrutiny
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
186
118
57
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
15
72
29
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
55
10
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
24
10
8
Independent
—
1
10
2
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
1
7
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
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
1
0
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Your Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Bill sponsor supporting amendments to improve workability, safeguards for patients and professionals, including conscience protections for all staff, clearer reporting obligations, and enhanced training on coercion and domestic abuse.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,934 words) →
Opposed to the bill in principle as it will harm vulnerable people; supports amendments today to improve safeguards but believes the collateral damage outweighs benefits.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (3,164 words) →
Raised concerns about Royal College of Psychiatrists' opposition regarding judicial oversight, protection of vulnerable groups (dementia, Down syndrome, mental illness), and comparisons to Belgium and Canada where scope has expanded beyond stated criteria.DUP · Voted no · Read full speech (454 words) →
Expressed concern that doctors with ideological commitment to assisted dying may specialise in providing it, expanding its scope beyond intention.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (68 words) →
Questioned whether pre-registration doctors (recent graduates) should perform these functions and raised concerns about psychiatrist availability for panel membership.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (265 words) →
Supported protections in new clause 10 but sought clarity on funding safeguards for hospices and care homes, and highlighted risk of repeated applications to different doctors.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (180 words) →
Highlighted risk of coercion through inadequate palliative care and poor social circumstances rather than just family pressure.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (91 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0