House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill Committee: New Clause 1
41Ayes
378Noes
Defeated · majority 337 · Government won231 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 41 · No 378 · DNV 231 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 12 November 2024 on New Clause 1, tabled by Conservative MP Sir Gavin Williamson, during the Committee stage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The clause would have removed the 26 Church of England bishops, known as the Lords Spiritual, from the House of Lords. The amendment was defeated by 378 votes to 41, Division 39. The House of Lords currently contains 26 Church of England bishops who hold automatic membership by virtue of their ecclesiastical office, giving them the right to participate in debates and vote on legislation. Had this clause passed, it would have ended that arrangement, removing any automatic right for bishops to sit in Parliament. The underlying bill is concerned only with removing the remaining hereditary peers; adding the Lords Spiritual to its scope would have extended the bill's reach considerably beyond its stated purpose. The Conservatives split almost evenly, with 17 voting for the clause and 17 against, while 82 Conservative MPs had no vote recorded. The Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens all voted in favour, as did 2 Liberal Democrats, though 70 Liberal Democrat MPs had no vote recorded. Labour voted unanimously against. The Liberal Democrats formally expressed sympathy with removing the bishops in the long run but declined to support the clause on the grounds that widening the bill risked its passage in the House of Lords, where the Salisbury convention (the convention that the Lords do not block manifesto commitments) would not protect an amendment that went beyond the government's manifesto.
Voting Aye meant
Support removing Church of England bishops from the House of Lords, ending the automatic right of the Lords Spiritual to sit and vote in Parliament
Voting No meant
Oppose widening the bill beyond its focused purpose of removing hereditary peers; prefer to address Lords Spiritual separately in future legislation
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
313
48
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
17
17
82
Liberal Democrats
—
2
0
69
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
35
7
Independent
—
3
4
7
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
0
Reform UK
—
0
2
5
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
2
0
0
Your Party
—
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
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
Opposes the trial as unnecessary and unethically broad; argues most children with gender incongruence resolve naturally without intervention, and risks permanent harm when clinicians cannot predict who will persist in trans identity.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (3,312 words) →
Supports the trial as clinically necessary, rigorous, and endorsed by Dr Cass; argues it is the only way to build evidence for a small cohort of children who need medical support and to prevent harm from unregulated treatment.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,532 words) →
Supports the trial on the basis of expert clinical advice and transparency; emphasises that medical decisions should be led by clinicians, not politics, and welcomes the MHRA's safeguards.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (858 words) →
Supports the trial; argues puberty blockers are already safely used for other conditions, parental consent provides crucial oversight, and stopping the trial would cut off information and options for the 7% of young people who do not resolve their dysphoria naturally.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,988 words) →
Opposes the trial; argues a previous UK trial showed no psychological benefit and some worsening of symptoms, and questions why the Government proceeds without first completing the data linkage study on existing patients.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,351 words) →
Opposes the trial; emphasises concern about informed consent for 11-year-olds, future family court battles over parental consent, and calls for engagement with detransitioners and expert clinicians who argue against the trial.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (958 words) →
Supports the trial as clinically necessary; argues Conservatives contradictorily oppose a measure they previously endorsed via Baroness Cass, and notes that preventing the trial drives young people to unsafe unregulated hormones.Scottish National Party · Voted no · Read full speech (1,409 words) →
Opposes the trial on grounds of child protection and cognitive development; questions why the data linkage study should not be completed first and whether children can meaningfully consent to lifelong irreversible effects.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (642 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0