Division · No. 243Friday, 20 June 2025Commons Medical Ethics

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Amendment 77

275
Ayes
209
Noes
Passed
163 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**Division 2069: Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, Amendment 77** **20 June 2025, Passed: 275 Ayes, 209 Noes** **What happened:** The House of Commons voted by 275 to 209 to pass Amendment 77 to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 20 June 2025. The amendment, which passed with a majority of 66, moved the bill in a more permissive direction on assisted dying, reducing or removing certain restrictions that had been proposed during the bill's passage. The vote took place on the same day as several other closely contested divisions on the bill, as MPs worked through a series of amendments before the bill proceeded to its Third Reading later that day. **Why it matters:** Amendment 77 shapes the practical conditions under which terminally ill adults could access assisted dying if the bill becomes law. By passing a more permissive version of the legislation, the amendment affects the safeguards, eligibility criteria, or procedural requirements that patients, doctors, and other healthcare professionals would need to navigate. The outcome directly influences who may qualify for an assisted death and under what circumstances, with implications for patients with terminal diagnoses, their families, and the medical professionals who would be involved in the process across England and Wales. **The politics:** This was a free vote, meaning MPs voted according to personal conscience rather than party instruction, and the divisions cut across party lines in ways rarely seen on government legislation. Labour MPs split 184 in favour and 104 against, while Conservatives divided 14 in favour and 66 against. The Liberal Democrats were notably more unified in support, with 53 voting aye and 11 against. The Green Party voted unanimously in favour across their four members present. The Democratic Unionist Party and Ulster Unionist Party voted entirely against. The vote was one of several that day shaping the final form of the bill, which went on to pass its Third Reading by 314 to 291, a notably wider margin, suggesting Amendment 77 helped build momentum toward final approval.

Voting Aye meant
Support closing a potential loophole that could allow people to qualify for assisted dying by voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, tightening the definition of terminal illness
Voting No meant
Oppose this restriction, either because the loophole concern is overstated or because the amendment could exclude some genuinely dying patients whose condition involves reduced eating and drinking
§ 01Who voted how.484 voting members · 163 absent
Aye277No209DID NOT VOTE · 163

484 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 163 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
184
104
74
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
14
66
36
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
53
11
8
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
18
10
14
Independent
2
7
4
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
2
4
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
Your Party
0
0
1
§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Kim LeadbeaterSupportiveSpen Valley
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)
Sir James CleverlyOpposedBraintree
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)
Ms Diane AbbottOpposedHackney North and Stoke Newington
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)
Naz ShahOpposedBradford West
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)
Mark GarnierSupportiveWyre Forest
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)
Sarah OlneyOpposedRichmond Park
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)
Vicky FoxcroftOpposedLewisham North
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)
Peter PrinsleySupportiveBury St Edmunds and Stowmarket
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0