A free vote, often called a conscience vote, is a vote in parliament where MPs or members of the House of Lords are not pressured by their party leadership to vote in a particular way. On these occasions, the party “whips” do not issue instructions. This leaves individuals free to vote according to their own conscience.

This practice is an exception to the normal state of affairs in the House of Commons, where divisions (votes) tend to be decided along party lines. Free votes are typically reserved for issues that are seen as matters of individual moral judgement rather than government policy.

How a free vote works

A free vote is enabled by the party whips choosing not to issue a “three-line whip”, which is a strict instruction to attend and vote in a specific way. The absence of this instruction signals to MPs that they can make their own decision without fear of disciplinary action from their party. During a free vote, it is common to see MPs from the same party voting on opposite sides of the argument.

Free votes are traditionally granted on issues that are considered to be matters of conscience and do not fall along conventional party-political lines. The decision to grant a free vote is made by the leadership of each individual party.

Free votes may also be granted on politically sensitive issues that are expected to divide a party internally. In such cases, party discipline is relaxed, allowing MPs to vote according to their personal views rather than the party line. This can result in members of the same frontbench adopting and voting for different positions without risking disciplinary sanctions.

Free votes therefore provide a way of proceeding when a party-wide consensus is not possible and/or the leadership is unable to enforce a position.

Granting a free vote is a pragmatic way for party leaders to manage deep internal divisions on sensitive topics where there is no clear consensus within their own ranks.

Notable examples of free votes

Some of the most significant pieces of social legislation in modern British history have been passed as a result of free votes.

The Representation of the People Act 1918, widely remembered for its landmark extension of the franchise to women, also served as a major battleground for arguments over electoral reform. A cross-party speaker’s conference (1916-1917) recommended a proposal that would have introduced the single transferable vote (STV) for multi-member boroughs and the alternative vote (AV) for single-member constituencies. Upon receiving the report of the speaker’s conference, the prime minister, David Lloyd George privately denounced proportional representation as a “device for defeating democracy, the principle of which was that the majority should rule, and for bringing faddists of all kinds into parliament, and establishing groups and disintegrating parties”.

Publicly, Lloyd George responded that he had “no personal opinion” on the matter of electoral reform. However, he said that PR was not “an essential part of the scheme” and urged the conference not to press their case on reform at the “expense of the whole of their scheme”.

Unconvinced by the merits of proportional representation, Lloyd George permitted debates on electoral reform in the Representation of the People Bill to be conducted through a series of free votes. The issue of proportional representation thereby pitted senior government ministers against each other, including George Cave, the anti-PR home secretary, and Arthur Balfour, the Conservative former prime minister and pro-PR foreign secretary.

The Abortion Act 1967, which legalised abortion in Great Britain, was passed as a private member’s bill on a free vote.

In December 1969, the permanent abolition of the death penalty, following a five-year “trial period” established in the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, was decided on a free vote. Harold Wilson’s Labour government was universally in favour of abolition.

In late 1977, a government proposal to introduce proportional representation for elections in Great Britain to the European parliament was put to a free vote in the House of Commons. The debate was the result of pressure from the Liberal Party, which was lending support to Jim Callaghan’s minority Labour government under the “Lib-Lab pact”.

Addressing the commons at committee stage, Merlyn Rees, the home secretary, explained: “The committee can… make a choice between the two systems. The government favour the regional list system, but government supporters will have a free vote on the issue.”

The PR proposal was ultimately rejected by 319 votes to 222 – a majority of 97. The Labour Party was deeply divided over the measure; Tony Benn, the eurosceptic energy secretary, was a notable opponent of proportional representation.

In October 2003, several Conservative MPs openly criticised the party leader, Iain Duncan Smith, after he imposed a three-line whip instructing his colleagues to vote against an amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill. The amendment aimed to allow unmarried couples to adopt children, effectively enabling same-sex couples to do so. Senior Tory MP Patrick Cormack reflected the views of many of his colleagues by describing the matter as “free vote territory.”

In February 2003 and March 2007, MPs took part in a series of free votes on options for reform of the House of Lords. These votes were designed to test the will of the House of Commons and establish a preferred direction for the next stage of reform.

On the first occasion, MPs rejected every option presented. On the second occasion, the commons voted by a majority of 113 (337 to 224) in favour of a 100% elected chamber. Shortly before, they had also narrowly approved an 80% elected, 20% appointed hybrid model. All other options, including a fully appointed house and the government’s preferred 50/50 split, were rejected.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which legalised same-sex marriage, was the subject of free votes in parliament. David Cameron, the prime minister, supported the legislation; however, more Conservative MPs voted against the bill at second reading than voted for it.

In December 2015, the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, allowed a free vote on Syria airstrikes to avoid a damaging split. This allowed shadow cabinet ministers to vote against the leadership’s position, including from the opposition dispatch box. Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, famously delivered an impassioned speech in favour of extending British airstrikes against Islamic State into Syria.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, better known as the assisted dying bill, passed its common stages following a series of free votes at second reading, third reading and on amendments. A similar bill in 2015 was defeated in the commons at its second reading (by 330 votes to 118) – also on a free vote.

An amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which sought to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales in June 2025 was deemed to be an issue of conscience and was decided on a free vote.

The same-sex marriage bill (February 2013)

In February 2013, the House of Commons voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage in England and Wales on a free vote by a decisive majority. MPs approved the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill by 400 votes to 175 – a majority of 225.

The vote at second reading exposed deep divisions within the Conservative party. As same-sex marriage was deemed to be a matter of conscience, the bill was decided by a free vote – meaning MPs were not subject to the party whip.

Consequently, more Conservative MPs voted against the prime minister’s flagship social reform than for it. 136 Conservatives opposed the bill, while 127 voted in favour. Cabinet ministers Owen Paterson, the environment secretary, and David Jones, the Welsh secretary, voted against the bill. Approximately 40 Conservatives, including attorney general Dominic Grieve and defence secretary Philip Hammond, abstained.

In total, 22 Labour MPs and four Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the bill.

Clip.

Opening the seven-hour debate, Miller argued that parliament should “value people equally in the law”.

Miller said: “Marriage is an institution with a long history of adaptation and change…

“Suggestions that the bill changes something that has remained unchanged for centuries simply do not recognise the road that marriage has travelled as an institution.”

Sir Roger Gale, a veteran Conservative MP, accused the government of attempting to “rewrite the lexicon” of marriage.

He said: “Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It has been that historically and it remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory – Orwellian almost – for any government of any political persuasion to try to rewrite the lexicon. It will not do.”

Conservative MP Edward Leigh argued that marriage was about creating a “secure environment for creating and raising children, based on lifelong commitment and exclusivity.”

He stated: “Marriage is not about ‘me, me, me’, nor about legally validating ‘my rights’ and ‘my relationships’; it is about a secure environment for creating and raising children, based on lifelong commitment and exclusivity.”

Conservative MP Peter Bone argued that the government did not have a mandate to introduce the bill. He argued that the 2010 general election manifestos and the coalition programme for government did “not deal anywhere with the question of gay marriage or same-sex marriage.”

Bone called for a referendum to be held on the subject of same-sex marriage.

Supporters of the legislation pointed to the Conservative “Contract for Equalities”, published during the 2010 general election campaign.

Conservative MP Tony Baldry, who served as the second church estates commissioner, warned the bill would “alter the intrinsic nature of marriage”.

He said: “The uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the distinctiveness of men and women, so removing that complementarity from the definition of marriage is to lose any social institution where sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged.”

Labour MP David Lammy likened arguments against same-sex marriage based on the existence of civil partnerships to the “separate but equal” doctrine of racial segregation.

Lammy stated: “Separate but equal is a fraud. It is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. It is the motif that determined that black and white people could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets.”

David Simpson of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) deferred to scripture, declaring: “This is not the jurisdiction of this House. This is not the jurisdiction of this government, of any European government or of any government in the world. This is an ordained constitution of God.”

Simpson added: “In the garden of Eden, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

The announcement of the result was greeted with rare applause in the public gallery.

Cameron welcomed the vote. In a post to Twitter (now X), he said: “Strong views exist on both sides but I believe MPs voting for gay people being able to marry too, is a step forward for our country.”

The assisted dying bill (November 2024)

In November 2024, the House of Commons voted to back the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in a free vote. This proposed legislation, a private member’s bill introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, proposed to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults in England and Wales. It passed its second reading by 330 votes to 275 – a majority of 55.

The bill would allow terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to request assistance to end their own lives “subject to safeguards and protections”. The fault lines of the debate transcended party divides and collective responsibility. The bill was subject to a “free vote” as a conscience issue – meaning party leaderships did not whip their MPs into voting either in favour or against assisted dying.

As such, while leading parliamentarians including the prime minister, Keir Starmer, his predecessor, Rishi Sunak, and the chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, all voted in favour – several senior cabinet ministers, including the deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, the health secretary, Wes Streeting, and the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, voted against.

Speaking ahead of the debate, Streeting expressed concerns about the potential burden on the NHS and ordered a review of the costs associated with assisted dying.

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, voted against the bill alongside the majority in her party.

In total, 23 Conservative MPs voted in favour at second reading, versus 92 who voted against. 234 Labour MPs voted in favour at second reading; 147 voted against.

Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, voted against the bill. 61 Lib Dem MPs backed the legislation, with 11 opposed.

Addressing the commons, Leadbeater said the bill was “not about people choosing between life and death”. She argued the proposed legislation was “about giving dying people with six months or less to live autonomy about how they die and the choice to shorten their deaths.”

She maintained that the current law was “failing” and that, as legislators, MPs had a “duty to do what is right to fix it.”

Leadbeater said her bill addressed “one of the most significant issues of our time – an issue that people across the country clearly want us to address, none more so than the many families who are facing the brutal and cruel reality of the status quo.”

She added: “Today is the beginning, not the end, of that process, but the debate can continue only if colleagues join me in the aye lobby today. I wholeheartedly encourage them to do so, and I commend the bill to the House.”

During the debate, the de facto opposition to the assisted dying bill was led by Danny Kruger, then a Conservative MP. He argued that it would fundamentally alter the relationship between the state and the citizen, creating a “state suicide service.”

Kruger described the proposed six-month prognosis as “arbitrary” and expressed his view that the bill’s safeguards would be eroded over time.

He referred to the “voices of those we cannot hear: the frail and elderly and the disabled”, arguing that MPs must “do better than this bill”.

Kruger added: “Let us have a debate in which we remember that we have intrinsic value; that real choice and autonomy means having access to the best care possible and the fullest control over what happens to us while we live; and that true dignity consists in being cared for to the end.”

The vote reflected a shift in parliamentary opinion. A similar bill providing for assisted dying was defeated in the commons at its second reading in 2015, with 330 voting against and 118 in favour.

The bill, amended during its committee stage, returned to the commons for its report stage and third reading in June 2025, where it passed by a narrower margin of 23 votes (314 votes to 291).

Additional resources

• House of Commons Library – Free votes in the House of Commons since 1979: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04793/
• The Constitution Society – Free votes: a democratic ideal? https://consoc.org.uk/free-votes-a-democractic-ideal/