Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 49
332Ayes
160Noes
Carried · majority 172 · Government won159 did not vote
651 Members · Aye 332 · No 160 · DNV 159 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 15 September 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 49 to the Employment Rights Bill, backing the government's position that the amendment was unnecessary. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 332 votes to 160. The amendment, along with the closely related Amendment 48, had sought to place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the requirements of seasonal workers when making regulations on guaranteed-hours contracts. The Bill's guaranteed-hours provisions require employers to offer zero and low-hours workers a contract reflecting the hours they regularly work over a reference period. Supporters of the Lords amendment argued that seasonal businesses and their workers need an explicit statutory duty to ensure the government considers their specific circumstances when drawing up those regulations. The government countered that the Bill already accommodates seasonal work, pointing to provisions allowing guaranteed-hours offers for limited-term contracts covering task-based or time-bound roles, and argued that adding the duty would be redundant. The division followed strict party lines. All 311 Labour and Labour/Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. Conservatives (82), Liberal Democrats (65), Reform UK (6) and the Democratic Unionist Party (2) all voted against, joining the single independent MP who voted no. The Scottish National Party (8), Plaid Cymru (3), the Greens (3) and three independents supported the government. The vote is part of a lengthy ping-pong process between the Commons and Lords on the Employment Rights Bill, with the government successfully overturning a series of Lords amendments across multiple sittings in September and December 2025.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, trusting that existing Bill provisions already protect seasonal workers and flexible employment arrangements adequately.
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment, arguing that seasonal businesses and workers need an explicit statutory duty on the government to consider their specific needs when making guaranteed-hours regulations.
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
277
0
84
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
82
34
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
64
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
34
0
8
Independent
—
3
2
8
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 Aye
3
0
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
2
0
0
Your 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
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