Employment Rights Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1B
310Ayes
155Noes
Carried · majority 155 · Government won183 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 310 · No 155 · DNV 183 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted by 310 to 155 on 5 November 2025 to reject a package of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, backing the government's position on several contested provisions. The central motion concerned Lords Amendment 1B, which touched the Bill's right for zero and low-hours workers to be offered guaranteed-hours contracts reflecting the hours they regularly work. Alongside that, the government also moved to restore its preferred position on trade union political funds, industrial action ballot thresholds, and heritage railway volunteering guidance. The vote matters because it determines the shape of some of the most significant changes to employment law in a generation. Overriding the Lords on guaranteed hours means the government's version of that entitlement, rather than the amended Lords version, advances toward becoming law. The decision on ballot thresholds removes the existing requirement that at least 50 per cent of eligible union members must turn out before a strike ballot is valid. Restoring the opt-out system for trade union political funds reverses a 2016 change that had required members to actively sign up. Together these provisions reshape the balance between workers, unions, and employers across Great Britain. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously in favour, providing the bulk of the 310 ayes. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted together in the no lobby, contributing 86 and 63 votes respectively. Reform UK also voted no. The SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and several independents supported the government. There were no recorded Labour rebels.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government overriding the Lords amendments, backing day-one employment rights, lower thresholds for industrial action ballots, and restoring the opt-out system for trade union political funds
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendments, which sought to limit or modify guaranteed hours provisions, retain the 50% turnout threshold for strike ballots, and keep the opt-in system for union political funds introduced in 2016
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
256
0
105
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
86
30
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
—
6
3
4
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
6
0
3
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
1
4
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Defended rejecting Lords amendments on day-one unfair dismissal rights, guaranteed hours, and strike ballot thresholds; argued these are core manifesto commitments that will provide security and dignity for workers while supporting fair employers.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (5,845 words) →
Opposed the Bill as rushed and half-baked, warning it will reduce youth hiring, create unemployment, and burden small businesses with compliance costs; called for meaningful compromises on qualifying periods, seasonal work, and guaranteed hours obligations.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,798 words) →
Passionately defended the Bill as delivering a new deal for working people, rejecting compromise amendments as attempts to water down manifesto promises; emphasized worker dignity and cited support from businesses like the Co-op and Richer Sounds.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,434 words) →
Supported the Bill's aims but urged amendments to clarify probation periods, change guaranteed hours to a right-to-request model, and maintain the 50% ballot threshold; argued for balance between worker security and business flexibility.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (2,057 words) →
Strongly opposed Lords amendments, particularly on zero-hours contracts and ballot thresholds; argued day-one unfair dismissal rights are essential and did not prevent probation periods; cited OECD evidence that employment regulation does not reduce employment.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,652 words) →
Defended the Bill as a manifesto pledge voted for by millions; cited research showing 73% of employers support day-one unfair dismissal rights; challenged Opposition claims about union influence by noting trade union support is transparent and democratic.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (344 words) →
Strongly opposed all Lords amendments, arguing they would water down manifesto commitments on day-one rights, guaranteed hours, and ballot thresholds; framed the Bill as essential to raising living standards after 14 years of wage suppression.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,139 words) →
Declared no concessions on the Bill; opposed political fund opt-in and ballot thresholds as undemocratic attacks on worker voice; committed to full repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (728 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0