A divisionDivision No. 340 · Wednesday, 5 November 2025· Commons· Employment

Employment Rights Bill: motion relating to Lords Reason 120B

308Ayes
153Noes
Carried · majority 155 · Government won
185 did not vote
Aye309No155DID NOT VOTE · 185

646 Members · Aye 308 · No 153 · DNV 185 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament passed the government's motion on the Employment Rights Bill on 5 November 2025, backing its position on a series of contested Lords amendments at a late stage of the bill's passage known as ping-pong. The vote was 308 Ayes to 153 Noes. The motion covered the day-one unfair dismissal right, trade union rights, statutory sick pay, sexual harassment duties, and guaranteed-hours contracts for zero and low-hours workers, rejecting Lords attempts to dilute those provisions and substituting the government's own amended versions in their place. The vote matters because it advances a substantial rewriting of employment law. The most debated element was the removal of the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims, replaced by a statutory probation period during which a modified, lighter-touch version of the right applies. The government indicated a preference for that period to be nine months, with details to follow in consultation. The bill also removes waiting days for Statutory Sick Pay, extends SSP to lower-paid workers, strengthens duties on employers to prevent sexual harassment, and expands trade union access and recognition rights. Those opposing the motion argued the measures raise costs for employers, create uncertainty in sectors such as hospitality, and risk deterring hiring, particularly of young workers. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously in favour, providing the bulk of the 308 Ayes. The Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and several independents also voted Aye. Conservative MPs voted solidly against, joined by the Liberal Democrats and Reform UK. There were no recorded Labour rebels. The vote sits within a longer sequence of ping-pong divisions on the bill; a related division in December 2025 passed by 326 to 162, and another in the same month by 311 to 96, reflecting a consistent pattern of the government holding its Commons majority against Lords resistance throughout the bill's final stages.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's Employment Rights Bill as amended, including day-one unfair dismissal protections with a statutory probation period, stronger trade union rights, and expanded sick pay — overriding Lords attempts to weaken these provisions.
Voting No meant
Oppose the government's approach, arguing that day-one rights and other measures increase costs and uncertainty for employers, particularly in sectors like hospitality, and will deter hiring — especially of young workers.
§ 01Who voted how.461 voting Members · 185 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
256
0
105
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
87
29
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
5
2
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
6
0
3
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
3
5
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
1
0
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

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Kate DeardenSupportiveHalifax
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)
Andrew GriffithOpposedArundel and South Downs
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)
Angela RaynerSupportiveAshton-under-Lyne
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)
Sarah OlneyNeutralRichmond Park
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)
Justin MaddersSupportiveEllesmere Port and Bromborough
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)
Ian LaverySupportiveBlyth and Ashington
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)
Andy McDonaldSupportiveMiddlesbrough and Thornaby East
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)
Antonia BanceSupportiveTipton and Wednesbury
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0