Division · No. 202Friday, 16 May 2025Commons Constitution and Democracy

Closure motion

288
Ayes
239
Noes
Passed · Government won
122 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** 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). **Why it matters:** 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 politics:** 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
§ 01Who voted how.527 voting members · 122 absent
Aye290No237DID NOT VOTE · 122

527 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 122 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
186
118
58
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
15
72
29
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
55
10
7
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
24
10
8
Independent
1
11
1
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
1
7
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
Your Party
0
1
§ 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 aye · 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 no · 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 no · 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 no · 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 no · 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 no · 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 no · 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