A divisionDivision No. 294 · Monday, 15 September 2025· Commons· Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 7

330Ayes
158Noes
Carried · majority 172 · Government won
157 did not vote
Aye333No159DID NOT VOTE · 157

645 Members · Aye 330 · No 158 · DNV 157 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

The House of Commons voted on 15 September 2025 to disagree with Lords Amendment 7 to the Employment Rights Bill, rejecting a modification introduced by the House of Lords. The motion passed by 330 votes to 158, restoring the government's original position on that element of the Bill and sending the matter back to the Lords as part of the parliamentary process known as "ping-pong," in which the two chambers negotiate the final text of legislation. The Employment Rights Bill is the Labour government's flagship workplace legislation, designed to strengthen protections for workers across Great Britain. By rejecting Lords Amendment 7, the Commons preserved the government's preferred approach to whichever specific provision the Lords had sought to alter, preventing the upper chamber from diluting or redirecting that element of the Bill. The outcome keeps the government's employment reform agenda on track, with implications for workers and employers across a wide range of sectors affected by the legislation. The vote divided along clear party lines. All 274 Labour MPs and 34 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government, joined by the Scottish National Party (8 votes), Plaid Cymru (3), the Greens (3), the Democratic Unionist Party (2), and a handful of independents (4). The 158 Noes came from the Conservatives (86), Liberal Democrats (66), and Reform UK (6), with one independent also voting against. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. This vote is one of several in the Bill's ping-pong stage, with comparable divisions on 8 December 2025 showing similar margins, reflecting an extended but consistent parliamentary contest between the Labour-led Commons and a Lords willing to push back on multiple provisions.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of the Lords' change to the Employment Rights Bill, backing Labour's original version of the legislation
Voting No meant
Support retaining the Lords' amendment, opposing the government's attempt to override the upper chamber's changes to employment rights law
§ 01Who voted how.488 voting Members · 157 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 Aye
274
0
87
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
86
30
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
66
6
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
34
0
8
Independent
4
1
8
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
8
0
1
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
2
0
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
2
0
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
Your 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
Peter KyleSupportiveHove and Portslade
Government will reject most Lords amendments and proceed with day-one unfair dismissal rights, employer-led guaranteed hours offers, and expanded bereavement leave, striking a balance between worker protection and business flexibility.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (7,412 words)
Andrew GriffithOpposedArundel and South Downs
The Bill will damage growth and employment; Lords amendments are reasonable and should be accepted, especially on probation periods (6 months instead of day one), zero-hours contract flexibility, and trade union ballot thresholds.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,054 words)
Justin MaddersSupportiveEllesmere Port and Bromborough
The Bill is landmark legislation delivering on Labour's manifesto; day-one unfair dismissal rights and employer-led guaranteed hours are essential to restore dignity at work and end the race to the bottom.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,898 words)
Sarah OlneyNeutralRichmond Park
Support Bill's aims but concerned about implementation detail left to secondary legislation; favour Lords amendments on guaranteed hours as a right to request (not obligation), 48-hour notice periods, and seasonal work protections.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (2,716 words)
Dr Luke EvansOpposedHinckley and Bosworth
Challenge Government on business support; claim most small and medium-sized businesses oppose the Bill despite Government assertions.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (54 words)
Sir Julian LewisQuestioningNew Forest East
Acknowledge some business concerns on probation tribunal involvement and sick pay waiting days; urge continued engagement with chambers of commerce.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (129 words)
Jim ShannonQuestioningStrangford
Small businesses fear sickness absence costs will rise dramatically; request assurance that Bill will not overwhelm businesses with additional payroll costs.DUP · Voted aye · Read full speech (141 words)
Liz Saville RobertsNeutralDwyfor Meirionnydd
Welcome most of Bill but urge Government to reconsider Lords amendment 61 on heritage railways to allow youth volunteering safely and legally.Plaid Cymru · Voted aye · Read full speech (194 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