Employment Rights Bill: motion relating to Lords Reason 72B
312Ayes
151Noes
Carried · majority 161 · Government won185 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 312 · No 151 · DNV 185 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 5 November 2025 to reject a series of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, backing the government's original position on worker protections by 312 votes to 151. The motion in question concerned Lords Reason 72B, part of a broader package of disagreements with the upper chamber covering guaranteed hours for workers, unfair dismissal protections, trade union ballot thresholds, political funds, and provisions relating to heritage rail volunteering. The Commons passed the motion to insist on its own position and, in several cases, substitute government amendments in lieu of the Lords' alternatives. The vote matters because the Employment Rights Bill is the government's central piece of legislation aimed at reshaping employment law in Great Britain. The areas covered by this package of motions include the right to guaranteed hours for workers on irregular contracts (sometimes called zero-hours contracts), day-one unfair dismissal protections, changes to trade union strike ballot thresholds, and the reversal of parts of the Conservative-era Trade Union Act 2016. Rejecting the Lords amendments means the government's versions of these provisions advance towards becoming law, extending protections to workers who currently have limited recourse if dismissed early in employment or offered unpredictable hours. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines, with Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs voting unanimously in favour, joined by the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and most independents. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and Reform UK voted against. There were no notable rebels on either side. The vote sits within a longer parliamentary ping-pong process between the Commons and the Lords, with related divisions in December 2025 showing the government consistently holding its position with majorities in the low-to-mid 300s.
Voting Aye meant
Support the Labour government's version of employment rights reforms, overriding Lords changes and maintaining stronger protections for workers including young people against unfair dismissal
Voting No meant
Oppose overriding the Lords amendments, arguing the government's approach risks discouraging employers from hiring young people and imposing excessive burdens on business
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
258
0
103
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
86
30
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
31
0
11
Independent
—
7
1
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
4
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
—
0
0
1
Your Party
—
1
0
0
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