House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill Committee: New Clause 20
98Ayes
375Noes
Defeated · majority 277 · Government won173 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 98 · No 375 · DNV 173 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 12 November 2024 on New Clause 20 to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, a clause tabled by Conservative MP Alex Burghart that would have inserted a statement describing the bill's purpose directly onto its face. The clause proposed that the bill's real effect was to give the Prime Minister sole power to appoint all Lords Temporal, rather than delivering genuine Lords reform. The amendment was defeated by 375 votes to 98. The bill itself removes the remaining right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of 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 20 did not change what the bill does; it would have added a characterisation of the bill's intent, framing it as a power grab by the executive rather than a constitutional reform. The government rejected that framing, arguing the bill does exactly what it says and what the Labour manifesto promised. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 87 Conservative MPs who voted backed the clause, joined by all 5 Reform UK MPs who voted and 4 Democratic Unionist Party MPs. Labour, Labour Co-operative, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, and SDLP MPs all voted against. Two independents voted in favour and seven against. There were no Conservative MPs recorded voting no and no Labour MPs recorded voting aye.
Voting Aye meant
Support adding a declaration that the bill's true effect is to give the Prime Minister unchecked power over Lords appointments, framing the reform as inadequate and politically motivated
Voting No meant
Oppose the Conservative attempt to reframe the bill's purpose; back the government's position that removing hereditary peers is a legitimate first step in Lords reform
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
—
2
7
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
9
0
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
5
0
2
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
0
2
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
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
The carbon budget is a science-led framework that combines climate action with economic growth, job creation, and national security; Britain has already halved emissions while growing the economy 85%, proving climate action and prosperity are compatible.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,455 words) →
The carbon budget lacks credible impact assessment, will increase costs for households and businesses, offshore manufacturing to higher-emission countries, and represents unaccountable control by civil servants and activists; the Climate Change Committee's costings are unreliable and not properly scrutinised.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,539 words) →
The carbon budget sets a credible long-term framework that provides business certainty; the previous cross-party consensus should be rebuilt and the government's delivery plan will answer the detailed questions about implementation.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,088 words) →
The carbon budget is necessary and science-based; climate change is already causing measurable harm; the government should accelerate electrification and place local authorities at the centre of delivery with statutory climate duties.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,426 words) →
The carbon budget reflects proven climate policy success; while scrutiny is legitimate, opposition to the measure signals climate denial; the transition must accelerate to tackle interconnected crises of climate, cost of living, and nature loss.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (783 words) →
The impact assessment explicitly states the transition will create net jobs; the Climate Change Committee's advice is robust and evidence-based; the cost of inaction is higher than the cost of the transition.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (155 words) →
The UK has already cut emissions 54% since 1990 and done its part; other countries should follow our lead rather than Britain imposing unilateral burdens on itself.Reform UK · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (157 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0