A divisionDivision No. 203 · Friday, 16 May 2025· Commons· Medical Ethics

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Report Stage: Amendment (a) to New Clause 10

243Ayes
279Noes
Defeated · majority 36
127 did not vote
Aye244No278DID NOT VOTE · 127

649 Members · Aye 243 · No 279 · DNV 127 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

The House of Commons voted on Amendment (a) to New Clause 10 of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill during its Report Stage on 16 May 2025. The amendment, which sought to add stronger safeguards or restrictions to the process by which terminally ill adults could seek end-of-life assistance, was defeated by 279 votes to 243. The defeat means the bill continues without the additional procedural protections or restrictions that this amendment would have introduced. The vote is one of several contested decisions shaping the final form of landmark legislation that would, if enacted, create a legal framework for assisted dying in England and Wales. The outcome directly affects terminally ill adults, their families, and the medical professionals who would be involved in any assisted dying process, determining how tightly regulated or accessible the eventual system would be. This was a free vote, meaning no party formally whipped its members, and the division lines cut across traditional party boundaries. Labour MPs split 118 in favour to 178 against, while Conservatives divided 75 in favour to 15 against, making Conservative members proportionally the strongest supporters of the additional safeguards. Liberal Democrats voted heavily against the amendment at 53 to 12. Independents, the DUP, Reform UK, and Plaid Cymru members leaned toward the amendment, while the Greens voted unanimously against it. The vote is part of a sustained series of contested divisions on this bill, with further amendments defeated and passed in a subsequent sitting on 20 June 2025.

Voting Aye meant
Support giving employers the right to prohibit staff from participating in assisted dying as part of their employment, even if those staff personally support it
Voting No meant
Oppose restricting individual healthcare workers' ability to participate in assisted dying based solely on their employer's conscience objection
§ 01Who voted how.522 voting Members · 127 absent

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
53
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
12
24
6
Independent
10
1
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
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
Your Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.7 principal speakers
Kim LeadbeaterSupportiveSpen Valley
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)
Rebecca PaulOpposedReigate
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)
Jim ShannonOpposedStrangford
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)
Sir Desmond SwayneQuestioningNew Forest West
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)
Dr Caroline JohnsonQuestioningSleaford and North Hykeham
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)
Polly BillingtonNeutralEast Thanet
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)
Iqbal MohamedQuestioningDewsbury and Batley
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0