A divisionDivision No. 298 · Monday, 15 September 2025· Commons· Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 47

327Ayes
164Noes
Carried · majority 163 · Government won
160 did not vote
Aye327No162DID NOT VOTE · 160

651 Members · Aye 327 · No 164 · DNV 160 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

The House of Commons voted on 15 September 2025 to disagree with Lords Amendment 47 to the Employment Rights Bill, effectively rejecting a modification the House of Lords had made to the government's employment rights proposals. The motion passed by 327 votes to 164, with the government's position prevailing. This vote is one stage in the parliamentary back-and-forth known as "ping-pong," in which a bill passes between the Commons and Lords until both chambers agree on a final text. By rejecting Lords Amendment 47, the Commons reasserted the government's original framework for workers' rights in that provision, preventing the Lords' changes from becoming law at this stage. The Employment Rights Bill is a substantial piece of legislation affecting how workers are hired, retained, dismissed, and protected across the UK economy, meaning the precise wording of each contested clause has real consequences for employers and employees alike. The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 310 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government's position, as did eight SNP members and three Greens. All 82 voting Conservatives, 66 Liberal Democrats, six Reform UK members, three Plaid Cymru members, and two Democratic Unionist Party members voted against. There were no notable cross-party rebellions on the government benches. The vote sits within a broader pattern of repeated Commons-Lords disagreements over the Employment Rights Bill, with several related divisions in December 2025 showing similar margins, suggesting the government has maintained a consistent and comfortable majority throughout the ping-pong process.

Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the government's original approach to employment rights without the enhanced whistleblower duty on employers
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment to strengthen whistleblowing protections, requiring employers to follow up on serious concerns raised by workers about crimes or safety issues
§ 01Who voted how.491 voting Members · 160 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
276
0
85
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
82
34
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
66
6
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
34
0
8
Independent
3
1
9
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
8
0
1
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
6
2
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 No
0
3
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
0
1
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 no · 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 no · 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