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 debate and forces an immediate vote on the matter under discussion. The motion passed by 288 votes to 239. The motion curtailed debate on whatever question was then before the House, preventing further contributions from MPs and moving proceedings directly to a division. Closure motions require the support of at least 100 MPs to be effective and are typically used by the government to manage parliamentary time when it wants to prevent lengthy opposition-led debate from consuming the business schedule. Labour and the Liberal Democrats largely backed the motion, delivering the government its majority. Conservative MPs opposed it by a large margin, 72 voting against and only 15 in favour, reflecting the opposition's preference for more debate time. A handful of Reform UK and Independent MPs also voted against. The related divisions listed in the data concern the Data Use and Access Bill, suggesting this closure motion was deployed during proceedings on that legislation, though the specific clause or stage under debate at the point the motion was moved is not identified in the available record.
Voting Aye meant
Support ending the debate immediately and proceeding to a vote, typically used by the government to manage parliamentary time.
Voting No meant
Oppose cutting off debate, typically signalling that the opposition wants more time to scrutinise or discuss the matter.
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
54
10
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
24
10
8
Independent
—
2
9
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
Your Party
—
0
2
0
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
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