House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill Committee: New Clause 7
New Clause 7
93Ayes
355Noes
Defeated · majority 262 · Government won198 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 93 · No 355 · DNV 198 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 12 November 2024 on New Clause 7 to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The clause would have placed a duty on ministers to bring forward proposals for a directly elected House of Lords. It was defeated by 355 votes to 93, Division number 40. The bill itself removes the remaining right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords, repealing the provision in the House of Lords Act 1999 that had preserved 90 elected hereditary peers plus the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain as members. New Clause 7 would have gone further, requiring the government to legislate for democratic elections to the upper chamber. Its defeat means the bill proceeds without any commitment to broader constitutional reform, leaving future changes to the Lords to be addressed, if at all, through separate legislation. Every Labour and Labour and Co-operative MP voted against the new clause, providing the overwhelming majority of the 355 noes. The Liberal Democrats voted unanimously in favour, joined by the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, the DUP, and the SDLP. No party other than Labour and its co-operative wing voted against. The result reflects the government's stated position that removing hereditary peers is the immediate priority and that wider Lords reform should be considered separately, while smaller parties pressed for bolder and faster constitutional change.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the government to legislate for a democratically elected House of Lords, going further than the current bill's removal of hereditary peers
Voting No meant
Oppose adding this commitment to the bill, preferring to pass the hereditary peers removal first and consider wider Lords reform separately
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
314
47
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
1
115
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
66
0
5
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
35
7
Independent
—
4
5
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
0
Reform UK
—
1
0
6
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
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
—
0
1
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
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 no_vote_recorded · 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 aye · 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 no_vote_recorded · 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