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 back the government's position on a cluster of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, passing the motion by 312 votes to 151. The motion directed the Commons to insist on its disagreement with several Lords amendments, including those relating to day-one unfair dismissal rights and probationary periods, while offering its own amendments in lieu. The government's substitute proposals preserved the core framework of day-one unfair dismissal protection alongside a statutory probation period, with ministers indicating a preference for that period to run nine months. The practical effect is to keep intact the Bill's removal of the existing two-year qualifying period before an employee can bring an unfair dismissal claim. Under the government's framework, new employees gain unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment, but during an initial statutory probation period employers can dismiss workers under a lighter-touch process. Ministers argued this balances job security for workers with the flexibility employers need to assess new hires. Critics in the debate warned that the nine-month probation period, combined with day-one rights, would deter hiring, raise costs, and disadvantage young workers in sectors such as hospitality. One Conservative MP cited a Resolution Foundation report calling the arrangement a "messy compromise" likely to confuse employers. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 258 Labour MPs and 31 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. All 86 voting Conservatives and all 62 voting Liberal Democrats opposed it, as did both voting Reform UK MPs. The Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens voted with the government. No Labour rebels were recorded. The result continued a consistent pattern across related divisions on the same Bill, with the government winning comparable majorities on Employment Rights Bill ping-pong votes in December 2025.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position on the Employment Rights Bill, including day-one unfair dismissal protections with a statutory probation period, overriding Lords amendments that sought to weaken or alter these provisions
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendments, reflecting concerns from opposition MPs that day-one unfair dismissal rights and the probation period framework will deter hiring, increase costs for employers, and harm young workers' job prospects
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
61
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
31
0
11
Independent
—
6
2
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
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