A divisionDivision No. 117 · Tuesday, 11 March 2025· Commons· Employment

Employment Rights Bill Report Stage: Amendment 288

105Ayes
409Noes
Defeated · majority 304 · Government won
136 did not vote
Aye107No406DID NOT VOTE · 136

650 Members · Aye 105 · No 409 · DNV 136 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

MPs voted on 11 March 2025 on Amendment 288 to the Employment Rights Bill, which would have removed hospitality venues and sports grounds from a new clause making employers legally responsible for harassment of their staff by third parties such as customers. The amendment was defeated by 409 votes to 105, meaning no such exemption will be created. The vote concerns Clause 18 of the Bill, which introduces a duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent third-party harassment of their workers. Defeating this amendment means that pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, and sports venues will be subject to the same duty as any other employer, with no carve-out for the particular conditions of those environments. Staff in hospitality and at sporting events, who frequently interact with large numbers of members of the public, will be covered by the strengthened protections. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 93 Conservative MPs who voted backed the amendment, joined by all 7 Reform UK MPs and 3 Democratic Unionist Party MPs. All Labour, Labour and Co-operative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, and Green MPs who voted opposed it. Three independent MPs voted for the exemption and three against. There were no Conservative or Reform MPs voting against the amendment, and no Labour or Liberal Democrat MPs voting for it, making this a clean government versus opposition division with no notable rebels on either side.

Voting Aye meant
Support carving out hospitality providers and sports venues from employer liability for third-party harassment, arguing the duty is unworkable in those environments.
Voting No meant
Oppose the exemption, backing a universal employer duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent third-party harassment regardless of sector.
§ 01Who voted how.514 voting Members · 136 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
93
0
23
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
61
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
30
12
Independent
3
4
7
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
9
0
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
7
0
0
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
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
2
0
Your Party
0
1
1
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
0
1
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