A divisionDivision No. 23 · Monday, 21 October 2024· Commons· Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Second Reading

386Ayes
105Noes
Carried · majority 281 · Government won
158 did not vote
Aye387No104DID NOT VOTE · 158

649 Members · Aye 386 · No 105 · DNV 158 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 21 October 2024 to give the Employment Rights Bill its Second Reading, the first major parliamentary hurdle for a piece of legislation. The bill passed by 386 votes to 105. A Second Reading is the stage at which MPs debate the broad principles of a bill before it proceeds to detailed scrutiny in committee. The bill introduces a significant package of changes to employment law. Its central measures include removing the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims, giving zero and low-hours workers the right to request guaranteed-hours contracts, abolishing the three waiting days before Statutory Sick Pay becomes payable, and substantially expanding trade union rights, including repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, who moved the bill, described it as "the biggest upgrade to workers' rights in a generation" and said over 10 million workers would benefit. Conservative MPs challenged the government's own impact assessment, which estimated the measures could cost employers up to £4.5 billion a year, arguing the bill threatened small businesses and economic growth. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 359 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted in favour, as did all nine Scottish National Party MPs, all four Green MPs, all three Plaid Cymru MPs, and both Social Democratic and Labour Party MPs. All 95 voting Conservatives opposed the bill, as did all five voting Reform UK MPs. Eight independents voted in favour and two against. There were no notable cross-party rebellions in either direction.

Voting Aye meant
Support the Employment Rights Bill, backing stronger protections for workers including day-one unfair dismissal rights, guaranteed hours for zero-hours workers, expanded statutory sick pay, and significantly expanded trade union rights
Voting No meant
Oppose the Employment Rights Bill, arguing it imposes up to £4.5 billion in annual costs on employers, threatens small businesses, and risks damaging growth and job creation
§ 01Who voted how.491 voting Members · 158 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
320
0
41
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
95
21
Liberal Democrats
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
39
0
3
Independent
8
2
4
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
0
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
2
0
0
Your Party
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
1
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.6 principal speakers
Sir John WhittingdaleSupportiveMaldon
The Bill is narrowly necessary to protect the hall's 150-year-old financial model and prevent £1.8 million in losses; governance safeguards and the Charity Commission already prevent abuse; seat holders have shown extraordinary generosity and no evidence of misconduct exists.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,631 words)
Emily ThornberryOpposedIslington South and Finsbury
The Bill should not pass without comprehensive governance reform; the current system creates manifest conflicts of interest whereby trustees profit from seat resales while controlling the charity; this is scandalous and Parliament should not facilitate profiteering.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,515 words)
Jonathan DaviesSupportiveMid Derbyshire
The Bill's substance is concerning but should proceed through parliamentary process; transparency can be improved and amendments made at report stage to address conflicts of interest without blocking the Bill outright.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (659 words)
Nigel HuddlestonSupportiveDroitwich and Evesham
Will support the revival motion; questions whether Parliament should legislate on internal operational details of 160-year-old institutions when other demands on time exist; raises broader debate about whether such bodies should use primary legislation.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (409 words)
Ian MurrayNeutralEdinburgh South
Government takes neutral position on private Bills; acknowledges legitimate Charity Commission concerns about conflicts of interest that the Bill fails to address; notes the forthcoming ticket tout ban Bill will address some abuses separately.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (837 words)
Peter FortuneQuestioningBromley and Biggin Hill
Seeks reassurance that conflicts of interest mechanisms will properly counter the problem of seat-holding trustees making decisions for financial gain.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (87 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