Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Third Reading
314Ayes
291Noes
Carried · majority 2343 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 314 · No 291 · DNV 43 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted 314 to 291 to pass the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at Third Reading on 20 June 2025, sending it to the House of Lords. The bill would permit terminally ill adults in England and Wales with a life expectancy of six months or less to request assistance to end their own lives, subject to assessment by two independent doctors, mandatory reflection periods, and approval from the High Court. The vote represents the most significant shift in the law on assisted dying in England and Wales in decades. If the bill completes its passage through the Lords and receives Royal Assent, it would amend the Suicide Act 1961 to exempt compliant assistance from criminal liability. It would affect terminally ill patients, doctors and other health professionals who may participate or conscientiously object, and the courts, which would bear responsibility for judicial oversight of each individual case. New criminal offences for coercion and falsifying declarations would also come into force. The vote cut across party lines on all sides. Among Labour MPs, 204 voted in favour and 145 against, with 12 having no vote recorded. The Liberal Democrats backed the bill by 56 to 14. Conservatives opposed it by 89 to 20. All five Democratic Unionist Party MPs voted against, as did a majority of independents. The Greens voted 4 to 0 in favour. Reform UK split 2 to 2 on the substantive vote, with 6 voting no. The bill was introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and the government took no official position, leaving all MPs to vote according to their individual conscience.
Voting Aye meant
Support legalising assisted dying for terminally ill adults, with safeguards including judicial oversight, dual medical assessment, and mandatory reflection periods.
Voting No meant
Oppose legalising assisted dying, on grounds of inadequate safeguards, risks to vulnerable people, ethical objections, or the state of palliative care.
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
204
145
12
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
20
89
7
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
55
14
2
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
23
16
3
Independent
—
3
9
1
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
2
6
0
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
Whipped Aye
3
1
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
1
0
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
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
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0