Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Report Stage: Amendment (a) to New Clause 10
243
Ayes
—
279
Noes
Defeated
127 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** 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. **Why it matters:** 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. **The politics:** 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
522 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 127 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
118
178
66
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
75
15
26
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
12
53
7
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
12
24
6
Independent
11
1
1
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped Aye
6
2
—
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
—
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
—
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
2
1
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
Your Party
1
0
—
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