Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill — Continuation of Debate — 14 Apr 2000

The majority of MPs voted to curtail debate on requiring the Consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for a prosecution under the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill. The threshold of 100 MPs required to curtail the debate was not met though.

MPs were considering the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill[1].

The operative clause of the Bill, clause 1, stated:

  • It shall be unlawful for any person responsible for the care of a patient to withdraw or withhold from the patient medical treatment or sustenance if his purpose or one of his purposes in doing so is to hasten or otherwise cause the death of the patient.

MPs were specifically considering a proposed new clause titled Consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions stating:

  • No prosecution under this Act shall be brought without the prior consent of the Director of Public Prosecution.

This division was on if to curtail the debate. The question supported by the majority of MPs was:

  • That the Question be now put

The result of the vote was: Ayes 96, Noes 10. House of Commons Standing Order 37[2] states, in relation to such questions:

  • that question shall not be decided in the affirmative unless it appears by the numbers declared from the chair that not fewer than one hundred Members voted in the majority in support of the motion.

As a result the debate continued.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con46 (+1 tell) 0029.4%
Lab39 7 (+1 tell)011.3%
LDem8 2 (+1 tell)126.1%
UUP2 (+1 tell) 0030.0%
Total:95 9117.3%

Rebel Voters - sorted by constituency

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Mr Joe AshtonBassetlawLabtellno
Rudi VisFinchley and Golders GreenLabno
Mrs Maria FyfeGlasgow MaryhillLabno
Mr Brian SedgemoreHackney South and ShoreditchLabno
Andrew DismoreHendonLabno
Dr Peter BrandIsle of WightLDemno
Mr David RendelNewburyLDemno
Evan HarrisOxford West and AbingdonLDemboth
Jim FitzpatrickPoplar and Canning TownLabno
Dr Jenny TongeRichmond ParkLDemtellno
Charlotte AtkinsStaffordshire MoorlandsLabno
John HealeyWentworthLabno

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive