Division · No. 301Monday, 15 September 2025Commons Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 60

318
Ayes
170
Noes
Passed · Government won
162 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 15 September 2025 to disagree with Lords Amendment 60 to the Employment Rights Bill, passing the motion by 318 votes to 170. This meant the government successfully rejected a change that the House of Lords had made to the Bill, keeping the government's original text intact on the provisions covered by that amendment. **Why it matters:** The Employment Rights Bill is one of the most significant pieces of labour legislation in a generation, and Lords Amendment 60 represented one of several points of contention between the elected Commons and the appointed Lords over the Bill's final shape. By voting to disagree with the Lords amendment, the Commons sided with the government's version of the relevant employment rights provisions rather than accepting modifications introduced by peers. The practical effect is that workers and employers will be governed by the government's preferred framework rather than the version the Lords sought to impose, though the exact policy content of Amendment 60 relates to specific provisions within a wide-ranging Bill covering areas such as trade union rights, zero-hours contracts, and other employment conditions. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously in favour at 310 combined ayes, with no defections to the No lobby. The Conservatives (83 No), Liberal Democrats (66 No), Scottish National Party (8 No), Reform UK (6 No) and smaller opposition parties all voted against. Four independents and all three Green MPs supported the government. The result reflects the broader pattern of parliamentary ping-pong (the back-and-forth process between Commons and Lords when one chamber rejects the other's amendments) that has characterised the Employment Rights Bill's passage, with related divisions in December 2025 showing similarly consistent government majorities on other Lords amendments to the same legislation.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's approach to a statutory probation period with lighter-touch dismissal rules, rejecting the Lords' amendment to broaden worker representation rights beyond trade unions
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment giving workers greater individual choice in representation (including non-union professionals) during probation periods, opposing what they see as a two-tier system favouring trade unions
§ 01Who voted how.488 voting members · 162 absent
Aye318No169DID NOT VOTE · 162

488 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 162 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
276
0
86
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
83
33
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
66
6
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
34
0
8
Independent
4
1
8
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 Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
1
1
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_vote_recorded · 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