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

The House of Commons voted on Amendment 288 to the Employment Rights Bill during its Report Stage on 11 March 2025. The amendment, put forward by the Conservative opposition, sought to make alternative modifications to the government's worker protection proposals within the Bill. The amendment was defeated by 409 votes to 105, a margin of over 300 votes. The Employment Rights Bill is the government's flagship legislation intended to overhaul workplace protections in the United Kingdom. Opposition amendments at Report Stage represent attempts to reshape the Bill before it moves to the House of Lords. By defeating this amendment, the government maintained its preferred version of the legislation, which includes measures on zero-hours contracts, fire and rehire practices, unfair dismissal protections from day one of employment, statutory sick pay for lower-paid workers, and protections for pregnant workers and new mothers. The Bill is described by ministers as the most significant expansion of employment rights in a generation, affecting millions of workers across the country. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 291 voting Labour MPs and their Labour and Co-operative colleagues rejected the amendment, joined by the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens. The Conservatives provided the bulk of the 105 Aye votes, with Reform UK and the Democratic Unionist Party also voting in favour of the amendment. This reflects a pattern throughout the Bill's passage of opposition parties using amendments to challenge specific provisions while the government relied on its substantial Commons majority to defeat them.

Voting Aye meant
Support carving out hospitality and sports venues from employer liability for third-party harassment, arguing it is unworkable for small businesses like pubs and bars
Voting No meant
Oppose the exemption, arguing all workers in hospitality and sports venues deserve the same protection from harassment as workers elsewhere
§ 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
62
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
30
12
Independent
3
3
8
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
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
Your 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