Division · No. 295Monday, 15 September 2025Commons Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 8

316
Ayes
172
Noes
Passed · Government won
161 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 15 September 2025 to reject a House of Lords amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, in a division that passed by 316 votes to 172. The motion asked the Commons to disagree with Lords Amendment 8, meaning the government's original provisions in the Bill would be preserved rather than the changes introduced by the unelected upper chamber. The result confirmed the government's position, with a majority of 144. Lords Amendment 8 represented a modification that the House of Lords had inserted into the Employment Rights Bill during that chamber's scrutiny of the legislation. By voting to disagree with it, the Commons sent the Bill back to the Lords without that amendment, continuing the parliamentary back-and-forth process known as "ping-pong," in which the two chambers negotiate the final text of legislation. The practical effect is that the employment rights protections or frameworks the government originally proposed in this section of the Bill remain intact, rather than being altered in the direction the Lords preferred. Workers, employers and businesses affected by whatever this specific clause governs will be subject to the government's original design rather than the Lords' revision. The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 308 Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party members who voted did so in favour of the motion, alongside three independents and all three Green MPs. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru and Democratic Unionist Party member who voted opposed the motion. There were no notable rebels on either side. This pattern reflects the broader parliamentary battle over the Employment Rights Bill, which has been one of the government's flagship pieces of legislation and a source of sustained opposition from parties who have argued it imposes excessive burdens on businesses or requires further revision.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government rejecting the Lords amendment on workers' rights to request guaranteed hours, backing the government's preferred approach to this provision in the Employment Rights Bill
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment, which MPs like the Lib Dems argued struck a better balance by giving workers the right to request fixed hours without imposing excessive administrative burdens on employers
§ 01Who voted how.488 voting members · 161 absent
Aye317No171DID NOT VOTE · 161

488 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 161 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
274
0
88
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
83
33
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
66
6
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
34
0
8
Independent
3
1
9
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
8
1
Reform UKWhipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
2
3
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
3
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
0
1
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 no · 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