Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Report Stage: Amendment (a) to New Clause 10
243Ayes
279Noes
Defeated · majority 36 · Government won127 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 243 · No 279 · DNV 127 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 16 May 2025 on amendment (a) to New Clause 10 of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at Report Stage. The amendment, tabled by Rebecca Paul, would have allowed employers who chose not to provide assisted dying services to prohibit their own employees from participating in those services during working hours. It was defeated by 279 votes to 243. The vote concerned the scope of conscientious objection protections built into the Bill. New Clause 10, tabled by the Bill's sponsor Kim Leadbeater, already provides that no person is under any duty to participate in assisted dying and creates employment protections against detriment for those who decline. The defeated amendment would have extended this by giving employers who opt out the explicit power to bar their staff from taking part in assisted dying services while working for them. Opponents argued this would risk blocking the sharing of patient records and safeguarding information between healthcare professionals, potentially harming terminally ill patients who may receive care from multiple providers. The Bill does not follow standard party lines, and the division reflected that cross-cutting character. Among Labour MPs, 118 voted for the amendment and 178 against, with 65 no vote recorded. Conservatives split more heavily in favour, with 75 voting aye and only 15 voting no. Liberal Democrats voted predominantly against by 53 to 12. Reform UK split 6 to 2 in favour, while all four Green MPs voted against. The result keeps the conscientious objection provisions as Leadbeater had framed them, without the additional employer-level restriction.
Voting Aye meant
Support giving employers who opt out of assisted dying the explicit right to prohibit their staff from participating in assisted dying services during working hours
Voting No meant
Oppose the employer opt-out amendment, arguing it risks blocking essential information-sharing between healthcare professionals and could compromise patient safety and safeguarding
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 No
118
178
65
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
75
15
26
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
12
52
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
12
24
6
Independent
—
9
2
2
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
6
2
0
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
2
1
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
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 no · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 aye · Read full speech (180 words) →
Highlighted risk of coercion through inadequate palliative care and poor social circumstances rather than just family pressure.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (91 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0