A divisionDivision No. 302 · Monday, 15 September 2025· Commons· Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 61

330Ayes
161Noes
Carried · majority 169 · Government won
160 did not vote
Aye328No161DID NOT VOTE · 160

651 Members · Aye 330 · No 161 · DNV 160 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 15 September 2025 to reject a Lords amendment to the Employment Rights Bill that would have preserved the opt-in system for trade union political funds introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016. The motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 61 passed by 330 votes to 161. The effect is that the Bill's clause 59 stands, reversing the 2016 change and restoring the long-standing opt-out arrangement under which union members are automatically enrolled in political funds unless they actively choose to leave. The practical consequence is that new trade union members will once again be treated as contributing to their union's political fund by default, rather than having to give explicit consent before any deduction is made. Unions raise money through political funds to campaign on workplace and political issues, and in some cases to affiliate to and donate to political parties. Supporters of the change argue that the opt-out model, which operated for roughly 70 years before 2016, gave unions a stable funding base. Opponents argue that members should not have to take action to prevent their money being used for political purposes they may not share. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 308 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs present voted with the government, as did the SNP's eight members who voted, Plaid Cymru's three, and a handful of independents and others. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, and the Democratic Unionist Party all voted against. There were no notable cross-party rebels recorded. The vote is part of a prolonged parliamentary back-and-forth over the Employment Rights Bill, with Lords and Commons exchanging positions on several contentious clauses in the weeks surrounding this division.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's decision to reject the Lords amendment and restore automatic opt-in to trade union political funds, reversing the 2016 opt-in requirement and strengthening unions' ability to raise political funds.
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment preserving the 2016 opt-in system, arguing members should give active, informed consent before their money goes to a union's political fund, rather than having to opt out.
§ 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
274
0
87
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
84
32
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 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
2
0
2
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

§ 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 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