Division · No. 392Monday, 15 December 2025Commons Employment

Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to disagree with the Lords in their Amendment 120N to Commons Amendment 120G and their Amendments 120P to 120S to Commons Amendment 120H

311
Ayes
96
Noes
Passed · Government won
239 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 15 December 2025 to reject a set of amendments the House of Lords had made to the Employment Rights Bill, specifically Lords amendments 120N and 120P to 120S. These amendments concerned the compensation framework for unfair dismissal claims, and the Lords had pushed back against the government's proposal to remove the existing cap on compensatory awards. The Commons passed the government's motion to disagree with the Lords by 311 votes to 96. The vote means the government's position, removing the cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal rather than keeping it at 52 weeks' gross pay or £118,223, survives intact. Ministers argued this change is needed to ensure workers, particularly older employees who face difficulty finding new work and may suffer substantial pension losses, are not left under-compensated. Critics warned that an uncapped system creates uncertainty for employers, makes insurance cover harder to obtain, and could make the UK an international outlier compared with competitors who maintain clear compensation limits. The division was almost entirely along party lines. All 306 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour of the government motion, joined by three Green MPs and three independents. All 90 Conservatives who voted opposed the motion, along with the three Democratic Unionist Party MPs, two Reform UK members, one Traditional Unionist Voice member, one Ulster Unionist and one independent. There were no notable Labour rebels. The Liberal Democrats appear to have been largely absent from the vote, with their spokesperson Sarah Olney voicing criticism of both the legislative process and the removal of the cap, but the party recorded no votes on either side. The result was the fourth time the Bill had returned to the Commons from the Lords in a process known as parliamentary ping-pong.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government overriding the Lords' procedural safeguards and pressing ahead with the Employment Rights Bill without additional consultation or impact assessment requirements on the disputed provision
Voting No meant
Back the Lords' position that a significant new policy inserted late in the Bill's passage should require proper consultation, risk assessment, and parliamentary scrutiny before becoming law
§ 01Who voted how.407 voting members · 239 absent
Aye312No98DID NOT VOTE · 239

407 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 239 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
277
0
85
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
90
26
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
3
1
9
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
2
6
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
Your Party
0
0
1
§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Kate DeardenSupportiveHalifax
The cap removal is justified because it removes perverse incentives for complex discrimination claims, fairly compensates unfairly dismissed workers, and was agreed by business and union representatives in good faith.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,732 words)
Andrew GriffithOpposedArundel and South Downs
Removing the cap without consultation, impact assessment or manifesto backing is reckless; it benefits only high earners, will clog tribunals further, and breaches trust with businesses who negotiated expecting the cap to remain.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,762 words)
Angela RaynerSupportiveAshton-under-Lyne
The Bill delivers a manifesto promise to millions of workers; hereditary peers have no right to block it, and 1.3 million people need statutory sick pay by April.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (252 words)
Sarah OlneyNeutralRichmond Park
Supports the six-month qualifying period as a vital compromise, but acknowledges employers dislike the cap removal; pragmatically accepting it to prevent further delay and protect the core wins.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,673 words)
Justin MaddersSupportiveEllesmere Port and Bromborough
Cap removal benefits older workers with pension losses; lifting it does not change how compensation is calculated, and the original qualifying period concession was also outside the manifesto.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,245 words)
Tom TugendhatOpposedTonbridge
Removing the cap creates uninsurable risk for businesses; insurance companies cannot underwrite unlimited liability, making it harder for employers to obtain cover.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (215 words)
Bradley ThomasOpposedBromsgrove
Cap removal will trigger a surge in high-earner claims, further clogging the already-inundated tribunal system; the measure lacks understanding of real business operations.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (634 words)
Laurence TurnerSupportiveBirmingham Northfield
The Lords amendment collapses the tripartite agreement and delays April's statutory sick pay extension; the Commons mandate must be respected over unelected peers.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (729 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