House of Lords Reform
Reform of the upper chamber
Based on 9 parliamentary votes
Related Constitution and Democracy Issues
How Parties Voted on House of Lords Reform
Government alignment shows how often each party voted with the government's stated position. Issue-aligned direction shows agreement with the AI-identified supportive stance.
Voted with government positionVoted in issue-aligned direction
Recent Votes
| Vote | Result | Date |
|---|---|---|
The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have created a new status of 'peer' as an honorary title without granting membership of the House of Lords, as part of the Bill to remove hereditary peers from Parliament. The government argued this title-without-membership concept was unnecessary and unworkable. Yes = Support the government's position of removing hereditary peers cleanly, rejecting a Lords compromise that would have preserved a new honorary peer title without parliamentary membership · No = Back the Lords amendment creating a new non-membership peer status, arguing it offers a compromise that respects the hereditary peerage tradition while still removing them from the legislature Govt: Aye | 336-74 | 4 Sept 2025 |
The House of Lords had amended the Hereditary Peers Bill to preserve the existing 92 hereditary peers (by gradually phasing them out via ending by-elections rather than removing them immediately). The Commons voted to reject this Lords amendment and proceed with immediate removal of all remaining hereditary peers from the Lords. Yes = Support overriding the Lords and removing all remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords immediately, without a gradual phase-out · No = Support the Lords amendment allowing existing hereditary peers to remain until they leave naturally, phasing out the practice by ending replacement by-elections rather than removing peers outright Govt: Aye | 337-77 | 4 Sept 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to reject changes made by the House of Lords to the Bill removing hereditary peers from Parliament. The Lords had amended the Bill (Lords Amendment 2), but the Government asked the Commons to overrule those changes and proceed with abolishing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Yes = Support the Government's position of rejecting the Lords' amendment and pressing ahead with removing all remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords, ending centuries of inherited privilege in the legislature. · No = Back the Lords' amendment and resist the straightforward removal of hereditary peers, with Conservatives arguing the reform simply replaces independent voices with Labour-appointed placemen and worsens rather than improves scrutiny. Govt: Aye | 331-75 | 4 Sept 2025 |
MPs voted on the Third Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which removes the right of the remaining 92 hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This is the final Commons stage before the Bill proceeds to the Lords. Yes = Support removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords, ending the principle that birth into a noble family grants a place in the legislature · No = Oppose removing hereditary peers in this abrupt manner, preferring a phased approach or transition arrangements such as life peerages for experienced hereditary peers Govt: Aye | 439-73 | 12 Nov 2024 |
Vote on whether to require the Government to bring forward further proposals for broader House of Lords reform within a set timeframe. The Liberal Democrats proposed this new clause to push Labour beyond just removing hereditary peers, pressing for wider democratic reform of the Lords. Yes = Support requiring the Government to commit to further, broader House of Lords reform beyond simply removing hereditary peers · No = Oppose placing a legislative requirement on the Government to produce further Lords reform proposals, preferring to proceed with the current Bill on its own terms Govt: No | 95-357 | 12 Nov 2024 |
Vote on a Conservative amendment that would delay the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords until Parliament had agreed on a broader plan for Lords reform, including how future appointments would work. The amendment was rejected, allowing the government's narrower bill removing hereditary peers to proceed without conditions attached. Yes = Support requiring a broader plan for Lords reform to be agreed before hereditary peers are removed, arguing constitutional change should not be done piecemeal · No = 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 Govt: No | 99-378 | 12 Nov 2024 |
Vote on whether to add a clause to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill explicitly stating that the Bill's true purpose is to allow the Prime Minister to appoint all Lords Temporal, and criticising the Government for not bringing forward a full Lords reform plan as promised in their manifesto. This was a Conservative attempt to embarrass the Government by making its alleged real intentions part of the law itself. Yes = Support inserting a declaration into the Bill describing it as enabling unchecked Prime Ministerial patronage over the Lords, and criticising Labour for failing to deliver comprehensive House of Lords reform · No = Oppose the Conservative amendment, defending the Bill as a legitimate first step in Lords reform and rejecting the characterisation of its purpose as stated in the new clause Govt: No | 100-377 | 12 Nov 2024 |
Vote on New Clause 1, tabled by Sir Gavin Williamson, which would have added additional conditions or provisions to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill beyond simply removing hereditary peers' voting rights. The government and Liberal Democrats opposed it as it risked complicating the Bill's passage. Yes = Support adding further conditions to the Bill removing hereditary peers, likely requiring additional reforms or commitments before the change takes effect · No = Oppose the new clause and support keeping the Bill focused solely on removing hereditary peers' right to sit and vote, without additional conditions that could jeopardise its passage Govt: No | 43-376 | 12 Nov 2024 |
MPs voted on a Conservative 'reasoned amendment' to block the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which would remove the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords. The reasoned amendment is a procedural device to oppose the Bill at its first major stage. Yes = Support blocking the Bill, opposing the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords and resisting this stage of Lords reform · No = Support the Bill proceeding, backing the government's plan to end the hereditary principle in the Lords as a first step in Lords reform Govt: No | 107-454 | 15 Oct 2024 |
How is this calculated?
Government alignment (primary bar) shows how often a party's MPs voted with the government's stated position on this issue. This is the most comparable metric across parties, as it measures the same reference point for everyone.
Issue-aligned direction (secondary bar) shows how often MPs voted in the direction tagged as supportive of this issue by AI analysis. For example, if a vote is tagged “pro-environment”, a Yes vote counts as aligned. This can be misleading when the tagged direction happens to align with opposition amendments rather than government bills.
Why these metrics may differ: Opposition parties often vote against government bills for strategic or procedural reasons, even when they broadly support the policy area. The government alignment metric makes this clearer by showing the actual voting pattern against a consistent reference.
Source: Commons division data from the UK Parliament Votes API. Alignment direction determined by AI analysis of vote stance tags. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.