Division · No. 293Monday, 15 September 2025Commons Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1

326
Ayes
160
Noes
Passed · Government won
157 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened**: The House of Commons voted on 15 September 2025 to disagree with Amendment 1 made by the House of Lords to the Employment Rights Bill. The motion passed by 326 votes to 160, meaning MPs rejected the Lords' modification and sided with the government's original version of the legislation. **Why it matters**: This vote is part of the parliamentary process known as "ping-pong," in which a bill passes back and forth between the Commons and the Lords until both chambers agree on its final text. By voting to disagree with Lords Amendment 1, the Commons sent the bill back to the Lords with that amendment removed. The Employment Rights Bill represents a substantial overhaul of workplace legislation, covering areas such as trade union rights, zero-hours contracts, and unfair dismissal protections. The outcome of this vote means the government's preferred version of the relevant provision moves forward, rather than the modified text the Lords had inserted. **The politics**: The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 275 voting Labour MPs and 33 Labour and Co-operative MPs backed the government, joined by SNP members, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, and the Democratic Unionist Party all voted against. The Liberal Democrats' decision to vote with the Conservatives and Reform UK against the government position reflects the opposition's shared interest in preserving the Lords' amendment rather than any broader ideological alignment. The Employment Rights Bill has been a major legislative priority for the Labour government and has attracted sustained opposition, with related votes in December 2025 showing similar margins and party alignments, suggesting the ping-pong process has been prolonged and contested.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government in overriding the Lords amendments, backing the Employment Rights Bill as the government intends it, including rejecting Lords amendment 1's proposed flexibility changes and other Lords modifications
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendments, arguing they improve the Bill by adding flexibility for workers — including disabled people — and other refinements, rather than accepting the government's version
§ 01Who voted how.486 voting members · 157 absent
Aye330No162DID NOT VOTE · 157

486 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 157 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
275
0
87
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
85
31
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
66
6
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
33
0
9
Independent
4
1
8
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
8
0
1
Reform UKWhipped No
0
7
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
2
3
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
Your Party
1
0
§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Peter KyleSupportiveHove and Portslade
Government will reject most Lords amendments and proceed with day-one unfair dismissal rights, employer-led guaranteed hours offers, and expanded bereavement leave, striking a balance between worker protection and business flexibility.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (7,412 words)
Andrew GriffithOpposedArundel and South Downs
The Bill will damage growth and employment; Lords amendments are reasonable and should be accepted, especially on probation periods (6 months instead of day one), zero-hours contract flexibility, and trade union ballot thresholds.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,054 words)
Justin MaddersSupportiveEllesmere Port and Bromborough
The Bill is landmark legislation delivering on Labour's manifesto; day-one unfair dismissal rights and employer-led guaranteed hours are essential to restore dignity at work and end the race to the bottom.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,898 words)
Sarah OlneyNeutralRichmond Park
Support Bill's aims but concerned about implementation detail left to secondary legislation; favour Lords amendments on guaranteed hours as a right to request (not obligation), 48-hour notice periods, and seasonal work protections.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (2,716 words)
Dr Luke EvansOpposedHinckley and Bosworth
Challenge Government on business support; claim most small and medium-sized businesses oppose the Bill despite Government assertions.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (54 words)
Sir Julian LewisQuestioningNew Forest East
Acknowledge some business concerns on probation tribunal involvement and sick pay waiting days; urge continued engagement with chambers of commerce.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (129 words)
Jim ShannonQuestioningStrangford
Small businesses fear sickness absence costs will rise dramatically; request assurance that Bill will not overwhelm businesses with additional payroll costs.DUP · Voted no · Read full speech (141 words)
Liz Saville RobertsNeutralDwyfor Meirionnydd
Welcome most of Bill but urge Government to reconsider Lords amendment 61 on heritage railways to allow youth volunteering safely and legally.Plaid Cymru · Voted aye · Read full speech (194 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