Division · No. 381Monday, 8 December 2025Commons Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to insist on disagreement to Lords Amendment 1B but to propose Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords Amendment 1B

327
Ayes
96
Noes
Passed · Government won
223 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 8 December 2025 to reject a Lords amendment to the Employment Rights Bill (Lords Amendment 1B) and instead adopt two government-drafted amendments in its place. The motion passed by 327 votes to 96. This was the third time MPs had returned to the Bill to consider changes proposed by the House of Lords, and it covered several contested areas including zero-hours contracts, unfair dismissal protections and compensation caps for workers. The vote advances a major package of employment law reforms that the government has described as its "plan to make work pay." Among the most significant provisions are new rights for workers on zero-hours contracts to be offered guaranteed hours, strengthened unfair dismissal protections taking effect from 1 January 2027, and increases to statutory sick pay. The Bill affects millions of workers in insecure employment across the UK, as well as employers who will face new obligations on working hours and dismissal procedures. The government's amendments in lieu were presented as a negotiated compromise reached with trade unions and business representatives, rather than the Lords' preferred formulation. The vote divided largely along party lines. Labour MPs, including Labour and Co-operative Party members, voted unanimously in favour, joined by Plaid Cymru, the Green Party and several independents. All 85 Conservative MPs who voted opposed the motion, alongside all four Democratic Unionist Party members who voted, all three Reform UK members who voted, and one each from Your Party and Traditional Unionist Voice. The Liberal Democrats abstained, with their spokesperson Sarah Olney citing a last-minute inclusion of the removal of a compensation cap that she said had not been part of discussions with business groups, though the minister disputed that account. Within Labour, Ian Lavery raised a public concern about the watering down of manifesto pledges on day-one employment rights, though he did not vote against the government.

Voting Aye meant
Support keeping the employer duty to proactively offer guaranteed hours to workers, rejecting the Lords' weaker version that would have required workers to request them
Voting No meant
Prefer the Lords' amendment placing the initiative on workers to request guaranteed hours, giving employers more flexibility
§ 01Who voted how.423 voting members · 223 absent
Aye328No98DID NOT VOTE · 223

423 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 223 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
283
0
79
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
85
31
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
31
0
11
Independent
5
3
5
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
3
5
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
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
0
1
§ 02From the debate.7 principal speakers
Kate DeardenSupportiveHalifax
Supports the government amendments as a balanced negotiated compromise between unions and businesses that will bring the Bill into law, with unfair dismissal protection from 6 months qualifying period from January 2027.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,758 words)
Andrew GriffithOpposedArundel and South Downs
Opposes the Bill as a 'charter for jobless generation' that will destroy youth employment, increase union power through automatic political fund deductions and repealed strike ballot thresholds, and remove compensation caps without impact assessment.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (975 words)
Angela RaynerSupportiveAshton-under-Lyne
Strongly supports the Bill as fulfilling a manifesto mandate and delivering job security, particularly for zero-hours contract workers; welcomes the compromise on timing and urges the Lords not to further obstruct.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (782 words)
Sarah OlneyNeutralRichmond Park
Welcomes the 6-month compromise but opposes the removal of the compensation cap as unilaterally sprung on stakeholders without consultation, and will abstain rather than support the motion.Liberal Democrats · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,969 words)
Andy McDonaldOpposedMiddlesbrough and Thornaby East
Opposes the compromise as a betrayal of the day-one unfair dismissal pledge; argues 6 months still allows unfair dismissal and will weaken protections for young, ethnic minority, and disabled workers.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (777 words)
Justin MaddersSupportiveEllesmere Port and Bromborough
Supports the Bill pragmatically as the best available outcome despite losing day-one rights; urges swift passage and warns Lords against further obstruction.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,237 words)
Antonia BanceSupportiveTipton and Wednesbury
Supports the amendments as a negotiated deal reflecting constructive union-business dialogue; argues the 6-month change will benefit 6.35 million workers and removing the cap ensures proper compensation.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (720 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