House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill Committee: New Clause 1
41
Ayes
—
378
Noes
Defeated · Government won
231 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** On 12 November 2024, the House of Commons voted on New Clause 1 during the Committee stage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The new clause would have required broader democratic reforms to the House of Lords to accompany the removal of hereditary peers. The amendment was defeated by 378 votes to 41. **Why it matters:** The bill as introduced has a narrow purpose: to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, removing the last remaining link between inherited titles and automatic membership of the upper chamber. New Clause 1 sought to widen that scope by attaching conditions or requirements for further democratic reform. Its defeat means the bill remains tightly focused on abolishing hereditary peerages, without any accompanying commitment to wider structural change such as an elected element or changes to appointment processes. The vote confirms that the Lords will continue to operate as an appointed chamber, at least for the foreseeable future. **The politics:** Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously against the new clause, reflecting the government's position that broader reform should not be bundled into this bill. Support came from a cross-party group of smaller parties including the SNP (9 votes), Plaid Cymru (4), the Greens (4), and the SDLP (2), alongside 17 Conservative MPs. The Conservatives were split almost evenly, with 17 in favour and 17 against. Reform UK and the DUP both opposed the clause. The vote sits within a cluster of similar amendment defeats on the same day, including Amendment 25 (Ayes 98, Noes 376) and New Clause 20 (Ayes 98, Noes 375), suggesting a consistent pattern of the government holding its majority against any attempt to expand the bill's scope.
Voting Aye meant
Support adding further conditions to the Bill removing hereditary peers, likely requiring additional reforms or commitments before the change takes effect
Voting No meant
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
419 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 231 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
314
48
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
17
17
82
Liberal Democrats
2
0
70
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
35
7
Independent
4
3
7
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
9
0
—
Reform UK
0
2
5
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
2
0
—
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
—
Your Party
0
0
1
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 no_vote_recorded · 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 aye · 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