Division · No. 276Thursday, 4 September 2025Commons House of Lords Reform

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1

336
Ayes
77
Noes
Passed · Government won
235 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 4 September 2025 to reject an amendment made by the House of Lords to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The specific vote was a motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1, which passed by 336 votes to 77. By voting to disagree, the House of Commons overturned a change the Lords had inserted into the Bill, keeping the legislation in the form the government prefers rather than accepting any modification sought by the upper chamber. The vote advances the government's plan to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Hereditary peers are those who hold their seat because of a title passed down through a family rather than because they were appointed on merit or for life. The Lords amendment that MPs rejected would have moderated the pace or scope of that removal. By disagreeing with it, MPs kept intact the government's preferred version of the Bill, which provides for complete abolition of inherited seats without a transition period or compromise arrangement. This affects the roughly 90 hereditary peers who currently remain in the Lords under an arrangement that has existed since 1999. The vote split almost entirely along party lines. Labour MPs, including those elected under the Labour and Co-operative party label, voted unanimously in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, contributing 269 votes to the Aye side. Liberal Democrats added 57 votes and smaller parties including the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens also voted Aye. All 74 Conservative MPs who voted went into the No lobby, and Reform UK's two voting members also opposed the motion. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. The result sits within a sequence of votes on the same day: two further motions to disagree with other Lords amendments to the same Bill, Amendment 2 and Amendment 3, passed by similarly large margins of 331 to 73 and 338 to 74 respectively, confirming that the Commons systematically rejected all of the Lords' attempts to alter the legislation.

Voting Aye meant
Support overriding the Lords and removing all remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords immediately, without a gradual phase-out
Voting No meant
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
§ 01Who voted how.413 voting members · 235 absent
Aye337No77DID NOT VOTE · 235

413 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 235 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
246
0
116
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
74
42
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
57
0
15
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
23
0
19
Independent
2
1
10
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
4
Reform UK
0
2
6
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
2
0
2
Plaid Cymru
2
0
2
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1
Your Party
0
0
1
§ 02From the debate.7 principal speakers
Nick Thomas-SymondsSupportiveTorfaen
Strongly supports immediate removal of all hereditary peers as a manifesto commitment; rejects Lords amendments that would delay or soften the reform; argues the hereditary principle is archaic and indefensible.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (5,696 words)
Alex BurghartOpposedBrentwood and Ongar
Opposes immediate removal; argues the Government breached a 1999 deal to phase out hereditary peers gradually; contends that removal is Cromwellian overreach that sets a dangerous precedent for removing political opponents.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (3,034 words)
Sarah OlneySupportiveRichmond Park
Welcomes the Bill as a first step toward greater democratic mandate; opposes all three substantive amendments (1, 2, 3) as diluting reform; argues the entire hereditary system should end immediately.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,858 words)
Sir Edward LeighOpposedGainsborough
Opposes the Bill on constitutional grounds; defends the hereditary principle as part of Parliament's ancient evolution; argues gradual phase-out is more British than revolutionary change; notes most affected peers are Opposition members.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,361 words)
Jonathan DaviesNeutralMid Derbyshire
Supports the core principle but urges caution on implementation; suggests delaying removal until end of Parliament to avoid disrupting committee work; questions the manifesto commitment on age 80 retirement.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,284 words)
Shaun DaviesSupportiveTelford
Strongly supports immediate removal; argues 26 years is already an excessive transition period; rejects the amendment as merely another delaying tactic with no genuine endpoint.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (599 words)
Mark SewardsSupportiveLeeds South West and Morley
Firmly supports immediate removal on principle that legislators should serve on merit, not DNA; rejects gradual phase-out and notes Britain is an anomaly in preserving hereditary legislative roles.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,091 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0