Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 23
329Ayes
163Noes
Carried · majority 166 · Government won157 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 329 · No 163 · DNV 157 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The House of Commons voted on 15 September 2025 to disagree with Lords Amendment 23 to the Employment Rights Bill, effectively rejecting a change the House of Lords had made to the legislation. The motion passed by 329 votes to 163, with the government securing a comfortable majority. This vote was part of the parliamentary process known as ping-pong, in which the two chambers exchange amendments until they reach agreement. Lords Amendment 23 sought to modify provisions in the Employment Rights Bill that the government wished to maintain in their original form. By voting to disagree with the Lords amendment, MPs preserved the government's preferred wording of the Bill, keeping intact employment rights provisions that the Lords had sought to alter. The Employment Rights Bill is a significant piece of legislation intended to strengthen protections for workers across the UK, and each amendment dispute in ping-pong determines the final shape of those protections. The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously in favour at 308 combined ayes, joined by the SNP (8), the Greens (3), Plaid Cymru (3) and several independents. Conservatives (85 no), Liberal Democrats (66 no), Reform UK (7 no) and the DUP (2 no) all voted against. There were no notable cross-party rebels within Labour's ranks. This result fits a broader pattern: the same bill saw multiple similar divisions in December 2025, with the government consistently winning by comparable margins, suggesting the Lords' amendments were being systematically rejected as the Bill moved toward its final form.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, backing the government's plan to extend unfair dismissal protections from day one of employment without a qualifying period
Voting No meant
Oppose removing the Lords amendment, arguing that probationary periods allow employers to take a chance on new workers and that eliminating them will deter hiring, particularly of young people, and expose businesses to costly tribunal proceedings
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
85
31
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
7
1
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
2
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
—
0
1
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
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Small businesses fear sickness absence costs will rise dramatically; request assurance that Bill will not overwhelm businesses with additional payroll costs.DUP · Voted no · Read full speech (141 words) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0