Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 62
330
Ayes
—
161
Noes
Passed · Government won
162 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 15 September 2025 to disagree with Lords Amendment 62 to the Employment Rights Bill, passing the motion by 330 votes to 161. This meant the Commons rejected a change the House of Lords had made to the Bill and reasserted the government's original position on that element of the legislation. **Why it matters:** The Employment Rights Bill is one of the Labour government's flagship pieces of legislation, designed to significantly expand protections and entitlements for workers across Great Britain. Lords Amendment 62 represented one of several modifications the upper chamber had made to the Bill during its passage through Parliament. By voting to disagree with it, the Commons blocked that particular Lords change and kept the government's preferred approach in place. The vote is part of the broader process known as "ping-pong," where the two chambers negotiate the final text of contested legislation, and the outcome here reinforces the government's employment rights framework in this specific area. **The politics:** The vote divided along strongly partisan lines. All 309 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour of disagreeing with the Lords amendment, and they were joined by the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and most independents voting that day. Against the government's position were the Conservatives (83 votes), the Liberal Democrats (65 votes), Reform UK (6 votes), and the Democratic Unionist Party (2 votes). The clean division, with no Labour rebels, reflects tight government whipping on a Bill central to its political programme.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's Employment Rights Bill as drafted, rejecting Lords amendments that would have altered trade union political fund arrangements and related provisions — backing what Labour calls a 'generational upgrade' in workers' rights
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendments, arguing they protected fairness and democratic legitimacy around trade union political funds, and expressing concern that the Bill as a whole will discourage businesses from hiring and harm employment prospects for young people and those with non-traditional backgrounds
491 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
275
0
87
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
83
33
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
65
7
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
34
0
8
Independent
3
1
9
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 WalesWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
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
—
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0