Division · No. 277Thursday, 4 September 2025Commons House of Lords Reform

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2

331
Ayes
73
Noes
Passed · Government won
243 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 4 September 2025 to reject Amendment 2 made by the House of Lords to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The motion to disagree with the Lords' amendment passed by 331 votes to 73, meaning the Commons sent the bill back to the Lords without accepting the change the upper chamber had sought to introduce. **Why it matters:** The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill aims to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords entirely, completing a reform begun in 1999 when most hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit and vote. Amendment 2 represented an attempt by the Lords to preserve some element of the hereditary arrangement. By rejecting it, the Commons reaffirmed the government's position that the Bill should achieve complete abolition of hereditary seats with no concessions. This affects the roughly 92 hereditary peers who have continued to sit in the Lords since 1999 under a temporary arrangement that has lasted over two decades. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously in favour of rejecting the amendment, totalling 272 votes, joined by all 56 Liberal Democrats present and one Green MP. All 72 Conservative MPs who voted opposed the motion, and both Reform UK members present joined them on the No side. There were no notable cross-party rebels. This division on Amendment 2 closely mirrored two other votes held the same day: the Commons also rejected Lords Amendment 1 by 336 to 77, and Lords Amendment 3 by 338 to 74, suggesting the Lords made three separate attempts to modify the Bill and the Commons resisted all of them with near-identical margins.

Voting Aye meant
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.
Voting No meant
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.
§ 01Who voted how.404 voting members · 243 absent
Aye331No75DID NOT VOTE · 243

404 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 243 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
249
0
113
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
72
44
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
56
0
16
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
23
0
19
Independent
2
1
10
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
2
6
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
1
0
3
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
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