A divisionDivision No. 341 · Wednesday, 5 November 2025· Commons· Employment

Employment Rights Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 48B

310Ayes
150Noes
Carried · majority 160 · Government won
188 did not vote
Aye309No152DID NOT VOTE · 188

648 Members · Aye 310 · No 150 · DNV 188 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

The House of Commons voted on 5 November 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 48B to the Employment Rights Bill, passing a government motion to disagree with the Lords by 310 votes to 150. The amendment, which had been inserted by the House of Lords, would have modified the Bill's provisions relating to guaranteed hours for workers, particularly affecting how the right to guaranteed hours applies to seasonal and flexible workers. The Commons majority overrode the Lords' proposed change, keeping the Government's original approach intact. The Employment Rights Bill is one of the most significant pieces of employment legislation in a generation, introducing a package of protections including day one rights against unfair dismissal, guaranteed hours offers for zero-hours contract workers, and changes to trade union balloting rules. By rejecting Lords Amendment 48B, the Commons maintained the Government's preferred framework for guaranteed hours rather than accepting a Lords modification that would have shifted the obligation from a right to guaranteed hours to a right to request them. This distinction matters practically: a right to be offered guaranteed hours is a stronger protection for workers, particularly those in sectors such as hospitality, retail and seasonal industries, where variable or zero-hours contracts are common. The vote divided almost entirely along government versus opposition lines. All 285 Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs who voted supported the Government. The Conservatives (86 votes) and Liberal Democrats (61 votes) both voted against, as did Reform UK's two voting members. Smaller parties including the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens backed the Government. The Liberal Democrats' position was notable: their spokesperson Sarah Olney indicated broad support for the Bill's principles but argued the guaranteed hours provision should be a right to request rather than a right to receive, aligning them with the Lords amendment. The Conservatives opposed the Bill more broadly, with shadow Secretary of State Andrew Griffith arguing it would reduce employment, particularly for young people. This was the second time the Commons had considered Lords amendments to the Bill, and subsequent votes in December 2025 show the Bill continued through further rounds of parliamentary exchange before receiving its final shape.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, maintaining consistent unfair dismissal and employment rights protections regardless of whether a worker is classified as seasonal
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment creating a distinct regulatory framework for seasonal workers, arguing current provisions create uncertainty for businesses reliant on seasonal labour
§ 01Who voted how.460 voting Members · 188 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
255
0
106
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
86
30
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
61
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
7
1
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
6
0
3
Reform UK
0
2
6
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
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
1
0
0
Your Party
1
0
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
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