House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: Third Reading
435Ayes
73Noes
Carried · majority 362 · Government won138 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 435 · No 73 · DNV 138 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted 435 to 73 on 12 November 2024 to pass the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill at Third Reading, sending it forward in the legislative process. The Bill removes the right of the remaining 92 hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, repealing the section of the House of Lords Act 1999 that had preserved their membership as a temporary exception. That exception, 25 years old, allowed 90 peers elected from among their number, plus the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain, to remain as members. The Bill ends a constitutional arrangement under which people could participate in making laws by virtue of birth into certain aristocratic families. In practical terms, hereditary peers who are currently members of the Lords will leave at the end of the parliamentary session in which the Bill receives Royal Assent. The Bill also abolishes the House of Lords' jurisdiction over disputed hereditary peerage claims, redirecting those cases to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Government described the measure as the first step in a broader programme of Lords reform set out in its manifesto. Every Labour, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Co-operative, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, and SDLP MP who voted did so in favour. All 69 Conservative MPs who voted and all 3 Reform UK MPs who voted opposed it. One independent MP voted against, while seven voted in favour. The result was not close, but during committee debate on the same day, Conservative MPs backed an amendment that would have delayed the Bill's commencement until a joint committee had examined wider Lords reform plans; that amendment was defeated 376 to 98.
Voting Aye meant
Support removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords as a matter of democratic principle, ending the right to legislate by accident of birth
Voting No meant
Oppose the Bill in its current form, arguing it should be accompanied by broader Lords reform or a phased transition rather than immediate removal
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 Aye
312
0
49
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
69
47
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
64
0
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
35
0
7
Independent
—
7
1
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
0
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
3
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
0
5
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
—
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 aye · 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 no_vote_recorded · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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