Division · No. 302Monday, 15 September 2025Commons Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 61

330
Ayes
161
Noes
Passed · Government won
160 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 15 September 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 61 to the Employment Rights Bill, with the government motion to disagree passing by 330 votes to 161. The vote restores the government's original provisions in place of the changes the House of Lords had introduced to the legislation. The result means the Bill continues on the government's preferred terms for this particular clause, though the Lords retain the ability to respond in what is known as parliamentary ping-pong, the back-and-forth process between the two chambers when they disagree. The practical effect of overriding Lords Amendment 61 is to maintain the government's approach to the relevant workers' rights provisions without the modifications the Lords sought to introduce. The Employment Rights Bill is a substantial piece of legislation aimed at strengthening protections for workers across Great Britain, and each amendment that passes or fails shapes the final statutory framework that employers and employees will operate under. Depending on which specific protections Amendment 61 addressed, the outcome affects how rights are defined, enforced, or qualified in the workplace going forward. The vote divided almost entirely along government versus opposition lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs provided 308 of the 330 Aye votes, joined by the Scottish National Party with 8, Plaid Cymru with 3, the Greens with 2, and several independents. All 84 Conservative MPs who voted went into the No lobby, alongside all 66 Liberal Democrats, all 6 Reform UK members who voted, and 2 Democratic Unionists. There were no Labour rebels. This vote forms part of a prolonged legislative passage, with related divisions on the same Bill occurring in December 2025, suggesting an extended period of disagreement between the Commons and the Lords over the Bill's final shape.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, maintaining that existing law already covers volunteering by under-16s on heritage railways and no special exemption is needed
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment allowing under-16s to volunteer on heritage railways and tramways, arguing it creates valuable opportunities for young people to engage with their communities and learn practical skills
§ 01Who voted how.491 voting members · 160 absent
Aye328No161DID NOT VOTE · 160

491 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 160 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
274
0
88
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
84
32
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
66
6
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
34
0
8
Independent
4
1
8
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
8
0
1
Reform UKWhipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
2
3
Green Party of England and Wales
2
0
2
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
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 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