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
The House of Commons voted on Amendment 25 to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill during its Committee Stage on 12 November 2024. The amendment, which sought to modify or delay the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords, was defeated by a substantial margin of 376 votes to 98. The Bill aims to remove the remaining 92 hereditary peers who have sat in the House of Lords under a compromise arrangement dating back to the House of Lords Act 1999. Defeating this amendment clears the path for the government to proceed with abolishing that arrangement without modification or delay. The change would affect the roughly 90 individuals currently sitting in the Lords by virtue of inherited title alone, and would alter the composition of the upper chamber by removing its last formal hereditary element. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 317 Labour MPs and all 35 Labour and Co-operative MPs voted against the amendment, alongside all SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, and SDLP members. The 87 Conservative MPs present voted unanimously in favour, joined by all four Democratic Unionist Party members and all four Reform UK members, plus two independents. There were no Conservative votes against and no Labour votes in favour, making this one of the cleaner partisan divides of the Parliament so far. The Bill sits within a broader programme of Lords reform signalled by the Labour government, and media coverage has focused on whether further structural changes to the upper chamber might follow once the hereditary element is removed.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring a broader plan for Lords reform to be agreed before hereditary peers are removed, arguing constitutional change should not be done piecemeal
Voting No meant
Oppose conditioning the removal of hereditary peers on wider Lords reform, backing the government's approach of removing hereditary peers as an immediate first step
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
72
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
35
7
Independent
—
1
8
5
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
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
Your Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Defends the Bill as a focused, principled manifesto commitment to immediately remove hereditary peers' right to sit; frames it as the first step in broader Lords reform; rejects pressures to expand scope or delay commencement.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (5,486 words) →
Argues the Bill is misconceived and politically motivated; claims the 90 hereditary peers were retained in 1999 as a guarantee that comprehensive reform would follow; contends the Bill removes experienced scrutineers without principled justification and risks constitutional damage through piecemeal change.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,441 words) →
Suggests the Bill fails an 'efficacy test'; questions whether removing hereditary peers actually improves the Lords or makes it more democratic; proposes offering life peerages to active hereditary peers on merit as an alternative.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,196 words) →
Supports the Bill as low-hanging fruit on which broad consensus exists; warns that tacking additional reforms (e.g. removing bishops) risks undermining consensus and inviting wrecking amendments; urges passing the Bill unamended so the Salisbury convention applies in the Lords.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,233 words) →
Welcomes the Bill but argues bolder reform is needed; tables amendments to require Government commitment to democratic mandate for the Lords and to prevent Prime Minister bypassing House of Lords Appointments Commission recommendations.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,230 words) →
Tables multiple amendments extending the Bill to remove bishops, introduce mandatory retirement at 80, require participation thresholds, tighten appointments, and secure a democratic mandate; frames these as fulfilling manifesto promises and constitutional improvements.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,741 words) →
Defends the Bill as necessary principle: hereditary membership is indefensible in 21st century; notes Opposition confusion about whether they want more or less reform; urges all Members to back the Bill as first step toward promised broader changes.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,015 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0