House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: Third Reading
435
Ayes
—
73
Noes
Passed · Government won
138 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 12 November 2024 to pass the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill at its Third Reading, the final stage before a bill moves to the other chamber. The bill passed by 435 votes to 73, a majority of 362. Third Reading is the last opportunity for MPs to vote on a bill as a whole, and this vote sent the legislation to the House of Lords for its consideration. **Why it matters:** The bill removes all remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords, ending their right to sit and vote in the upper chamber. Hereditary peers are members who hold their seats by virtue of inheriting a title, rather than being appointed for life. A partial reform in 1999 under Tony Blair removed most hereditary peers but left 92 in place as a temporary compromise. This bill closes that arrangement entirely. In practical terms, it affects around 90 individuals who currently sit in the Lords and participate in scrutinising and amending legislation, and it represents the most significant change to the composition of the Lords since that 1999 reform. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs voted 348 to zero in favour, Liberal Democrats voted 65 to zero in favour, and the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens all voted unanimously in favour. Conservative MPs voted 69 to zero against, and Reform UK voted 3 to zero against. There were no notable rebels on either side. The bill forms part of a broader Labour commitment to Lords reform and sits alongside ongoing discussions about the longer-term future of the upper chamber. On the same day, MPs rejected two amendments at committee stage, including one that secured only 98 votes against 376, indicating the government faced little difficulty in holding its position throughout the bill's passage in the Commons.
Voting Aye meant
Support removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords, ending the principle that birth into a noble family grants a place in the legislature
Voting No meant
Oppose removing hereditary peers in this abrupt manner, preferring a phased approach or transition arrangements such as life peerages for experienced hereditary peers
508 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 138 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
313
0
49
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
69
47
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
65
0
7
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
35
0
7
Independent
5
1
8
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
9
0
—
Reform UKWhipped No
0
3
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
0
5
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
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 aye · 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 · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 no_vote_recorded · 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 aye · 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