House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill Committee: New Clause 20
98
Ayes
—
375
Noes
Defeated · Government won
173 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 12 November 2024 on a proposed new clause (New Clause 20) to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill during its Committee stage in the House of Commons. The clause, put forward by Conservatives, would have required the government to formally consult hereditary peers and their families before removing their right to sit in the House of Lords. The amendment was defeated by 375 votes to 98. The vote concerned whether the government must undertake a consultation process specifically with hereditary peers and their relatives before the Bill's reforms take effect. Had it passed, it would have introduced a procedural requirement that could slow or complicate the removal of the remaining 92 hereditary peers from the Lords, a reform that would end the last category of membership in Parliament based solely on inherited title. The measure affects a small but historically significant group whose presence in the legislature dates back centuries. The division followed clear party lines. Conservatives voted unanimously in favour of the consultation requirement, joined by Reform UK MPs and the Democratic Unionist Party. Labour, Labour Co-operative, SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and the SDLP all voted against. Two independents supported the clause and six opposed it. There were no Conservative votes against the clause and no Labour votes in favour, making this one of the sharpest partisan divisions of the Bill's committee stage. This vote was one of several on the same day, with a near-identical result recorded on Amendment 25, also defeated 98 to 376, suggesting a coordinated Conservative effort to test the government's position on multiple fronts.
Voting Aye meant
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
Voting No meant
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
473 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 173 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
317
45
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
87
0
29
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
35
7
Independent
2
6
6
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
9
—
Reform UKWhipped Aye
5
0
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
—
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
2
—
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
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 aye · 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