Division · No. 245Friday, 20 June 2025Commons Medical Ethics

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Third Reading

314
Ayes
291
Noes
Passed
43 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 20 June 2025 to pass the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at its Third Reading, the final stage in the House of Commons before a bill proceeds to the House of Lords. The result was 314 votes in favour and 291 against, a margin of 23 votes. The bill would, if it becomes law, legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults in England and Wales, subject to a range of safeguards including medical and judicial oversight. The bill's passage at Third Reading means it now moves to the House of Lords for scrutiny, amendment, and further votes. In practical terms, the legislation would create a legal pathway for adults with a terminal diagnosis to request assistance in ending their life, provided they meet eligibility criteria and their request is approved by two doctors and a High Court judge. The change would affect patients, medical professionals, the judiciary, and palliative care services across England and Wales. It represents the most significant proposed shift in the law on end-of-life choices in the United Kingdom's history. The vote was held on a free vote, meaning party whips did not instruct members how to vote, and the division cut across party lines. Labour members split 204 in favour and 145 against, with a further 23 Labour and Co-operative members dividing 23 to 16 in favour. Liberal Democrats backed the bill by 56 to 14. Conservatives opposed it heavily, voting 89 against and only 20 in favour. The Green Party's four MPs all voted in favour. Reform UK split 2 to 6 against, and the Democratic Unionist Party voted unanimously against. The bill had earlier cleared several amendment votes on the same day, including the acceptance of Amendment 77, which tightened the definition of terminal illness, and Amendment 94, relating to the involvement of the High Court.

Voting Aye meant
Support passing the assisted dying bill, allowing terminally ill adults in England and Wales to request assistance to end their lives under strict safeguards
Voting No meant
Oppose the assisted dying bill, whether on grounds of inadequate safeguards, ethical objections, or concerns about vulnerable people being pressured
§ 01Who voted how.605 voting members · 43 absent
Aye315No291DID NOT VOTE · 43

605 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 43 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
204
145
13
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
20
89
7
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
56
14
2
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
23
16
3
Independent
2
11
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
2
6
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
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.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