Division · No. 278Thursday, 4 September 2025Commons House of Lords Reform

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3

338
Ayes
74
Noes
Passed · Government won
239 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 4 September 2025 to reject a Lords amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, with the motion to disagree passing by 338 votes to 74. This was the third of several divisions held the same day on Lords amendments to the Bill, with the Commons also rejecting Amendments 1 and 2 in similar votes (336 to 77, and 331 to 73 respectively). The effect of this vote was to send the Bill back to the House of Lords without accepting its proposed modification, maintaining the government's original position that all hereditary peers should be removed from the Lords without the changes the upper chamber had sought to introduce. The Bill removes the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, ending a practice that has existed since the Lords Act 1999 left 92 hereditary peers in place as a temporary compromise. Lords Amendment 3, which the Commons rejected here, attempted to modify or soften that removal, and by disagreeing with it, the Commons insisted on the complete and unmodified abolition of the remaining hereditary peers' voting rights. The reform affects around 90 individuals who currently hold seats in the Lords by virtue of hereditary title rather than appointment. Its passage would represent the most significant change to the composition of the upper chamber since 1999. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 245 voting Labour MPs, all 57 Liberal Democrats, all 23 Labour and Co-operative MPs, and smaller groupings from the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens voted with the government. All 71 voting Conservatives were in the No lobby, joined by 2 Reform UK MPs and 1 independent. There were no notable rebels on either side. The clean split reflects a broader political fault line on Lords reform, with the government using its Commons majority to override repeated Lords attempts to amend the Bill, a process known as parliamentary ping-pong, where the two chambers exchange the legislation until one side concedes.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position of removing hereditary peers cleanly, rejecting a Lords compromise that would have preserved a new honorary peer title without parliamentary membership
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment creating a new non-membership peer status, arguing it offers a compromise that respects the hereditary peerage tradition while still removing them from the legislature
§ 01Who voted how.412 voting members · 239 absent
Aye336No74DID NOT VOTE · 239

412 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 239 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
245
0
117
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
71
45
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