A divisionDivision No. 116 · Tuesday, 11 March 2025· Commons· Employment

Employment Rights Bill Report Stage: New Clause 87

106Ayes
340Noes
Defeated · majority 234 · Government won
199 did not vote
Aye108No342DID NOT VOTE · 199

645 Members · Aye 106 · No 340 · DNV 199 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

MPs voted on 11 March 2025 on New Clause 87, a Conservative amendment to the Employment Rights Bill at Report Stage. The clause would have required the Secretary of State to have regard to economic growth and the international competitiveness of the UK economy when making regulations under Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. The amendment was defeated by 340 votes to 106. The Bill hands ministers broad powers to implement key provisions, including guaranteed hours for zero and low-hours workers, the extension of those provisions to agency workers, and the new unfair dismissal framework, through secondary legislation (regulations made after the Bill passes, with less parliamentary scrutiny than primary law). Supporters of New Clause 87 argued this made a growth-and-competitiveness requirement especially necessary, given that Parliament would have limited opportunity to scrutinise the details later. Opponents characterised it as a wrecking amendment intended to constrain the government's ability to deliver the workers' rights protections at the heart of the Bill. In practical terms, had the clause passed, any minister drafting those regulations would have been legally required to weigh economic growth and competitiveness objectives before finalising the rules. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 293 Labour MPs and 31 Labour and Co-operative MPs voted against, as did the Greens, Plaid Cymru, and the Social Democratic and Labour Party. All 94 voting Conservatives supported the clause, joined by all six voting Reform UK MPs and three Democratic Unionist Party MPs. Seven independents voted no, while three voted aye. There were no Conservative MPs recorded voting against the amendment, and no Labour MPs recorded voting for it.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring ministers to consider economic growth and international competitiveness when making employment regulations, arguing the Bill imposes unsustainable costs on business without adequate scrutiny.
Voting No meant
Oppose this requirement, viewing it as a wrecking amendment designed to constrain the government's ability to deliver workers' rights protections through regulations under the Employment Rights Act.
§ 01Who voted how.446 voting Members · 199 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
293
68
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
94
0
22
Liberal Democrats
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
31
11
Independent
3
7
4
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
6
0
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
3
0
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
2
0
Your Party
0
2
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