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

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

275Ayes
209Noes
Carried · majority 66
163 did not vote
Aye277No209DID NOT VOTE · 163

647 Members · Aye 275 · No 209 · DNV 163 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 20 June 2025, the House of Commons passed Amendment 77 to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill by 275 votes to 209. The amendment, tabled by the Bill's sponsor Kim Leadbeater, expanded the duty on regulations governing final statements to require that those statements record whether the person had a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 immediately before their death, excluding any disability arising from the terminal illness itself. The amendment strengthens the monitoring framework around assisted dying by ensuring that disability status is captured in the official record at the point of death. This information would feed into the data available to Chief Medical Officers and to the statutory review of the Act, giving regulators and Parliament a clearer picture of who is accessing assisted dying and whether people with disabilities are using the service at disproportionate rates. The practical effect is to add a specific equality data point to the final statement that must be completed under the Bill's oversight provisions. The vote did not divide along strict party lines, reflecting the free vote applying across the Commons on this Bill. Labour MPs voted 184 in favour and 104 against, with 73 absent. Liberal Democrats backed the amendment by 53 to 11. Conservatives opposed it more heavily, voting 66 against and 14 in favour. The Democratic Unionist Party and Ulster Unionist Party voted entirely against. The Green Party's four MPs all voted in favour. Reform UK split two ayes to four noes. The result sits alongside several other divisions taken the same day at Report Stage, a stage in which MPs debate and vote on proposed changes to a Bill that has already passed through committee, with the Bill subsequently passing its Third Reading by 314 to 291.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring additional disability-related information to be recorded in final statements under the assisted dying framework, strengthening monitoring and oversight of who accesses assisted dying.
Voting No meant
Oppose this particular addition to the reporting requirements, either on grounds of opposition to the Bill as a whole or concern about how disability status is recorded in this context.
§ 01Who voted how.484 voting Members · 163 absent

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
184
104
73
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
14
66
36
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
52
11
8
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
18
10
14
Independent
3
6
4
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
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
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

§ 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