A divisionDivision No. 115 · Tuesday, 11 March 2025· Commons· Employment

Employment Rights Bill Report Stage: New Clause 30

189Ayes
324Noes
Defeated · majority 135 · Government won
133 did not vote
Aye191No325DID NOT VOTE · 133

646 Members · Aye 189 · No 324 · DNV 133 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 11 March 2025 on New Clause 30 to the Employment Rights Bill, which would have given special constables the right to take unpaid time off work to carry out their volunteer policing duties. The clause aimed to bring special constables into line with other public service volunteers, such as magistrates and councillors, who already enjoy this entitlement under section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The motion was defeated by 324 votes to 189. The practical effect of New Clause 30 would have been to require employers to permit special constables to take unpaid leave when needed for their policing duties, without fear of dismissal or detriment. Supporters argued this would help recruit and retain special constables, who serve at no cost to the taxpayer and have done so in various forms since 1831. Opponents did not make detailed arguments against the clause in the available record; the government's position was to oppose it, and Labour MPs voted accordingly. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 321 Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the clause. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Greens, Reform UK, and the Democratic Unionist Party all voted in favour, forming a cross-party bloc of 189. The new clause was tabled by Sir Ashley Fox, Conservative MP for Bridgwater, and backed by Nick Timothy among others. It was one of many opposition amendments debated during the Report Stage of a bill that has attracted sustained criticism from the Conservatives for the pace of its drafting and scrutiny.

Voting Aye meant
Support giving special constables the right to unpaid leave for their volunteer policing duties, recognising their civic contribution and helping recruit and retain volunteers.
Voting No meant
Oppose adding this provision to the Employment Rights Bill at this stage, likely preferring to address it separately or rejecting the amendment as a Conservative addition to a government bill.
§ 01Who voted how.513 voting Members · 133 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
290
71
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
94
0
22
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
63
0
8
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
31
11
Independent
7
3
4
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
0
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
3
0
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
1
1
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Gregory StaffordOpposedFarnham and Bordon
Opposes the Bill as anti-business, claiming £5 billion costs, threatens zero-hours flexibility, and lacks small business consultation.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,187 words)
Steve WitherdenSupportiveMontgomeryshire and Glyndŵr
Supports the Bill as transformative, welcomes fire-and-rehire restrictions, zero-hours controls, and protections for workers' dignity and security.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (511 words)
Sarah RussellSupportiveCongleton
Backs maternity protections, flexible working rights, and third-party harassment provisions; dismisses Conservative scaremongering about unfair dismissal rights.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,193 words)
Nick TimothyQuestioningWest Suffolk
Supports new clause 105 to regulate gig economy substitution clauses and prevent labour abuse, but does not support the Bill overall.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,325 words)
John McDonnellSupportiveHayes and Harlington
Welcomes seafarers' charter and fire-and-rehire protections but seeks stronger measures including injunctive relief and sectoral collective bargaining.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,224 words)
Andy McDonaldSupportiveMiddlesbrough and Thornaby East
Supports the Bill as historic expansion of rights; advocates for single employment status, injunctive powers for unions, and stronger collective bargaining.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,449 words)
Aphra BrandrethOpposedChester South and Eddisbury
Opposes the Bill; warns of £5 billion costs and damage to growth; seeks exemptions for hospitality sector from third-party harassment liability.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (865 words)
Imran HussainSupportiveBradford East
Supports the Bill; proposes amendments to align statutory sick pay with living wage and ensure no workers are worse off under new system.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,378 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