House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill Committee: Amendment 25
98Ayes
376Noes
Defeated · majority 278 · Government won173 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 98 · No 376 · DNV 173 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted down a Conservative amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill on 12 November 2024, by 376 votes to 98. The amendment, tabled by Alex Burghart, would have prevented the Bill from coming into force until the House of Commons had passed a resolution endorsing the conclusions of a joint parliamentary committee. That committee would have been required to examine the government's full Lords reform programme, including the removal of hereditary peers, a mandatory retirement age, a participation threshold, changes to the removal of disgraced members, and changes to the appointments process. The vote matters because it determines whether the removal of the remaining 88 hereditary peers from the House of Lords proceeds on its own or is tied to a broader package of reforms. By defeating the amendment, the Commons cleared the way for the Bill to come into force at the end of the parliamentary session without any prior requirement for wider reform commitments to be assessed or approved. The hereditary peers who hold no other qualification for membership will lose their right to sit and vote in the Lords once the Act takes effect. The division split almost entirely along party lines. All 316 Labour MPs and all 35 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted opposed the amendment, as did the nine SNP MPs, all four Plaid Cymru MPs, and all four Green MPs. All 87 voting Conservatives backed it, joined by the four Democratic Unionist Party MPs, four Reform UK MPs, and one independent. There were no Conservative MPs voting against and no Labour MPs voting for it.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring a joint parliamentary committee to review all Lords reform plans before the hereditary peers removal takes effect, arguing piecemeal constitutional change is reckless and politically self-serving.
Voting No meant
Oppose delaying the Bill, arguing the removal of hereditary peers from the legislature is a clear manifesto commitment that should proceed without conditions attached.
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 No
0
316
45
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
87
0
29
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
35
7
Independent
—
1
7
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
9
0
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
2
0
Your Party
—
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Defence spending must reach 3% of GDP or minimum £28 billion immediately; DIP delay is chaos; Defence Secretary and Armed Forces Minister resignations prove Labour prioritises welfare over defence; calls on government to cut welfare to fund defence.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,996 words) →
Government has delivered biggest defence uplift since Cold War, raised recruitment and retention, signed 1,400 contracts; DIP will be published before NATO summit; previous Conservative governments hollowed out armed forces; Labour is rebuilding capability.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,204 words) →
Defence investment plan must be published urgently; spending should reach 3% by 2030; £20 billion defence bonds would unlock investment; Britain must lead European defence; Northern Ireland Troubles Bill should be scrapped as incompatible with human rights.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,741 words) →
UK is in conflict with Russia and is frontline nation; defence debate must focus on capability not just spending numbers; Government has awarded major contracts and improved pay; Russian cyber and hybrid threats are real and present.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,931 words) →
Risk has been passed between Governments since Cold War and has crystallised; Britain came 31st of 32 NATO members on rearmament; procurement reform urgent; Ukraine model shows five-day requirement-to-delivery possible.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,691 words) →
Prime Minister offered only 0.08% GDP increase (£10 billion real terms) for Defence Investment Plan, which prompted Defence Secretary resignation; grossly inadequate for national security.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (79 words) →
Uncertainty created by potential new Prime Minister with unknown defence priorities damages defence industry and dual-use companies; need far more certainty on defence policy.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (114 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0