A divisionDivision No. 304 · Monday, 15 September 2025· Commons· Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 121

316Ayes
161Noes
Carried · majority 155 · Government won
175 did not vote
Aye314No160DID NOT VOTE · 175

652 Members · Aye 316 · No 161 · DNV 175 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

MPs voted 316 to 161 on 15 September 2025 to reject Lords amendment 121 to the Employment Rights Bill. The amendment, inserted by the House of Lords, would have permitted academy schools to deviate from the pay and conditions agreed through the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, a body the Bill reinstates after its abolition in 2010. The government's motion to disagree with the Lords passed, meaning academy schools will remain bound by whatever agreements the negotiating body reaches. The vote matters because it determines whether academy schools, which operate with greater independence from local authority control than maintained schools, can set their own terms and conditions for support staff, such as teaching assistants and administrative workers, outside the centralised negotiating framework. The government's position is that allowing academies to opt out would undermine the purpose of restoring the negotiating body. Had the Lords amendment stood, academy employers could have offered different pay and conditions independently of that body's agreed outcomes. The division followed strict party lines. All 307 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. The 161 votes against came from Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the Democratic Unionist Party, and the Ulster Unionist Party. The Greens and a handful of independents voted with the government. No Labour MPs voted against. The result fits a broader pattern in the Bill's passage through ping-pong, the back-and-forth process between Commons and Lords, in which the government has consistently overturned Lords amendments that opposition peers inserted to soften or limit the Bill's provisions.

Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping academy schools subject to the School Support Staff Negotiating Body's agreed pay and conditions rather than allowing them to opt out
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment permitting academies to set their own pay and conditions independently of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, preserving greater autonomy for academy schools
§ 01Who voted how.477 voting Members · 175 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
273
0
88
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
84
32
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
64
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
34
0
8
Independent
3
2
8
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
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
0
2
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 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