A divisionDivision No. 301 · Monday, 15 September 2025· Commons· Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 60

318Ayes
170Noes
Carried · majority 148 · Government won
162 did not vote
Aye318No169DID NOT VOTE · 162

650 Members · Aye 318 · No 170 · DNV 162 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

MPs voted 318 to 170 on 15 September 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 60 to the Employment Rights Bill, supporting the government's motion to disagree with the Lords' change and restore the Bill to the form the Commons had passed. The amendment was considered alongside a large group of Lords changes at ping-pong stage, the process by which the two Houses exchange amendments until they reach agreement. The Employment Rights Bill makes sweeping changes to employment law, including guaranteed-hours contracts for zero and low-hours workers, day-one unfair dismissal rights, new shift-notice and cancellation-pay entitlements, and significant trade union reforms. Rejecting Amendment 60 advances the government's intention to proceed with its own approach to these provisions rather than accept the modifications the Lords introduced. The specific content of Amendment 60 is not set out individually in the available debate record, which groups it with Amendments 61 and 62 in a single motion to disagree, so its precise effect cannot be stated with certainty from the material provided. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously for the motion, providing all 310 votes on the aye side together with three independents, three Greens, and two Your Party MPs. All 83 Conservatives, all 66 Liberal Democrats, all eight SNP members, six Reform UK MPs, and two Democratic Unionists who voted recorded noes, with one independent also voting no. There were no Labour rebels. The vote illustrates the breadth of opposition to the Bill beyond the Conservatives, with the Liberal Democrats and SNP joining the government's opponents, though the government's majority was large enough to be comfortable.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government rejecting the Lords' amendment and proceeding with the Employment Rights Bill as the Commons intended, backing stronger statutory employment protections without the modifications introduced by the Lords.
Voting No meant
Prefer the Lords' amended version of the Bill, broadly backing Conservative opposition arguments that the Bill as drafted imposes excessive burdens on employers, particularly in hospitality and seasonal industries.
§ 01Who voted how.488 voting Members · 162 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
83
33
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
65
6
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
34
0
8
Independent
3
2
8
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
8
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
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
1
1
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

§ 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_vote_recorded · 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