Division · No. 226Friday, 13 June 2025Commons Medical Ethics

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: New Clause 1

230
Ayes
256
Noes
Defeated
162 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** On 13 June 2025, the House of Commons voted on New Clause 1 to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which proposed adding further safeguards or restrictions to the assisted dying framework set out in the Bill. The clause was defeated by 256 votes to 230, a margin of 26. The vote was a free vote, meaning MPs were not whipped by their party leaders and voted according to personal conscience. **Why it matters:** The defeat of New Clause 1 means that the additional safeguards or restrictions it proposed will not be incorporated into the Bill at this stage. The Bill, which would create a legal framework for assisted dying for terminally ill adults in England and Wales, continues its parliamentary passage without these additional provisions. The outcome affects how tightly regulated any future assisted dying system would be, with implications for terminally ill patients, medical professionals, and those concerned about the potential for vulnerable people to face pressure. **The politics:** This was a cross-cutting vote that did not follow party lines. Labour MPs split sharply, with 111 voting for the clause and 166 against. Conservatives backed the clause by a wide margin of 68 to 13. Liberal Democrats were predominantly opposed, voting 47 to 13 against. Smaller parties broadly supported the clause, including all five DUP MPs and a majority of Reform UK members, while the four Green MPs all voted against. The vote sits within a broader and ongoing series of contested divisions on the Bill, with further amendments voted on in late June 2025 producing similarly close and divided results.

Voting Aye meant
Support New Clause 1 as proposed to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Voting No meant
Oppose New Clause 1, either rejecting its specific provisions or opposing the assisted dying framework more broadly
§ 01Who voted how.486 voting members · 162 absent
Aye231No256DID NOT VOTE · 162

486 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 162 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
111
166
85
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
68
13
35
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
13
47
12
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
13
21
8
Independent
10
2
1
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped Aye
5
2
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
3
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
§ 02From the debate.6 principal speakers
Kim LeadbeaterSupportiveSpen Valley
Bill sponsor presenting amendments to improve regulatory framework, safeguards, and devolution compliance while ensuring palliative care and assisted dying work alongside each otherLabour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,870 words)
Sarah OlneyOpposedRichmond Park
Concerned that vulnerable groups (disabled people, ethnic minorities, those with mental health issues) remain insufficiently protected despite amendments; supports greater parliamentary scrutiny through affirmative procedure for statutory instrumentsLiberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,755 words)
Patricia FergusonQuestioningGlasgow West
Seeks clarification on devolution implications and conversations with Scottish Government regarding extension of clauses to ScotlandLabour · Voted teller_aye · Read full speech (738 words)
Jim ShannonOpposedStrangford
Questions the evidential basis for the Bill, citing case of terminal patient who exceeded prognosis; expresses concerns about protections for vulnerable groupsDemocratic Unionist Party · Voted aye · Read full speech (375 words)
Dr Jeevun SandherSupportiveLoughborough
Supports new clause 6 proposing special representative for ethnic minorities to ensure fair treatment in assisted dying accessLabour · Voted no · Read full speech (965 words)
Cat EcclesSupportiveStourbridge
As operating department practitioner, affirms that existing healthcare frameworks and safeguards in the Bill are adequate for drug managementLabour · Voted no · Read full speech (97 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