A divisionDivision No. 303 · Monday, 15 September 2025· Commons· Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 62

330Ayes
161Noes
Carried · majority 169 · Government won
162 did not vote
Aye328No159DID NOT VOTE · 162

653 Members · Aye 330 · No 161 · DNV 162 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 15 September 2025 to reject a Lords amendment that would have kept the existing 50% turnout threshold for trade union strike ballots. The motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 62 passed by 330 votes to 161. The effect of the Commons winning this division is that the government's original plan proceeds: the 50% turnout requirement is removed, so a strike ballot result will be determined by a simple majority of those who vote rather than requiring half of all eligible members to participate. The change matters because the 50% threshold, introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016, has been one of the more contested restrictions on industrial action in recent decades. Removing it means that unions will no longer need to achieve a minimum participation level before a lawful strike can proceed; a majority vote among however many members return a ballot is sufficient. Government supporters argue this aligns strike ballots with other democratic votes, including general elections and votes in Parliament. Opponents argue the threshold exists to ensure that industrial action reflects the will of the wider membership, not just an engaged minority. Andrew Griffith, speaking for the Conservative side, warned that a strike could legally proceed with the support of just over a quarter of eligible members. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 309 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government, joined by the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and three independents. All 83 Conservative MPs who voted, all 65 Liberal Democrats, all 6 Reform UK members who voted, two Democratic Unionist Party members, and one independent voted against. There were no Conservative or Liberal Democrat votes on the government side and no Labour votes against. This division was one of several on the same day in which the Commons rejected Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill; related divisions in December 2025 on other parts of the same bill showed similar government majorities in the low-to-mid 300s.

Voting Aye meant
Support removing the 50% turnout requirement for strike ballots, making it easier for unions to call lawful industrial action under a simple majority of those who vote
Voting No meant
Oppose removing the 50% turnout threshold, arguing that strikes should only proceed when a majority of all eligible union members have voted in favour, not just a majority of those who bother to vote
§ 01Who voted how.491 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
275
0
86
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
83
33
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
1
0
1
Your Party
1
0
1
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