Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Amendment 94
274Ayes
224Noes
Carried · majority 50154 did not vote
652 Members · Aye 274 · No 224 · DNV 154 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament passed Amendment 94 to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 20 June 2025 by 274 votes to 224. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to include, in the first annual report on the Act's implementation, a specific assessment of the state of palliative and end-of-life care services, covering their availability, quality, and distribution, and the implications of the Act on those services. The practical effect is to bring forward scrutiny of palliative care provision. The Bill already requires a full review of the Act between five and six years after Royal Assent. Amendment 94 mirrors that review's requirements for palliative care assessment but places an equivalent obligation on the first annual report, meaning Parliament and the public will receive that information within roughly the first year rather than waiting up to six years for it. The vote cut across party lines on what is a free vote issue for all parties. Labour MPs divided 183 in favour and 110 against, with 68 absent. Liberal Democrats backed the amendment 51 to 12. Conservatives voted against it more heavily, 65 to 13, with 38 absent. The Democratic Unionist Party and Plaid Cymru voted entirely against, while the three Green MPs were mostly in favour. The amendment passed on the same day the Bill cleared its Report Stage and passed Third Reading by 314 votes to 291.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the government to formally assess the state of palliative and end-of-life care services early in the Act's implementation, ensuring any impact on those services is scrutinised before the main five-year review.
Voting No meant
Oppose adding this specific assessment requirement to the first report, either because it duplicates the existing five-year review obligation or because it is unnecessary given other oversight mechanisms.
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
183
110
68
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
13
65
38
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
50
12
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
18
11
13
Independent
—
3
8
2
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
2
4
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
1
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
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
Moved Third Reading; argues the Bill is safe, compassionate, and necessary to end the injustices of the status quo; emphasizes strong safeguards and multiple capacity assessments.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,966 words) →
Opposes Third Reading; raises practical concerns about implementation, professional capacity, coercion risks in vulnerable communities, and loss of the promised 'gold standard' safeguards in Committee.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,204 words) →
Supports the principle of assisted dying but opposes this Bill; warns of coercion risks, lack of coroner oversight, for-profit contractor risks, and insufficient protection for vulnerable and marginalized groups.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (777 words) →
Opposes the Bill as currently drafted; highlights failure to close the anorexia loophole and rejection of amendment 38; argues lack of expert consensus from Royal Colleges makes it unsafe.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,018 words) →
Supports the Bill; draws on personal experience of his mother's painful death from pancreatic cancer and contrasts it with a constituent's dignified assisted dying in Spain.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (870 words) →
Opposes the Bill; argues it lacks professional consensus, will face legal challenges, cannot be properly implemented without willing professionals, and compares unfavorably to the 1967 Abortion Act model.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,467 words) →
Opposes the Bill; emphasizes disabled people's organizations' fears and shift from neutral to opposed stance; notes absence of disabled voices in consultation and poor accessibility of Bill materials.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (827 words) →
Supports the Bill; as a long-serving doctor, argues it provides essential choice to dying patients, protects vulnerable groups through panel oversight, and offers final autonomy and dignity.Unknown · Voted aye · Read full speech (674 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0