Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to insist on disagreement to LA62 but not to insist on Commons Amendment 62C and to propose Gov (a) in lieu of LA62

Parliament voted on 8 December 2025 on whether to accept the government's position in the latest round of negotiations between the Commons and the Lords over the Employment Rights Bill. The government motion rejected a Lords amendment (known as LA62) but offered a compromise proposal in its place, continuing the back-and-forth process known as parliamentary ping-pong. The motion passed by 327 votes to 162, with Labour MPs voting unanimously in favour and opposition parties voting against or abstaining.

The vote forms part of the final stages of a wide-ranging piece of legislation that has been more than a year in the making. The Employment Rights Bill is the government's flagship workplace reform package, covering zero-hours contracts, unfair dismissal protections, statutory sick pay, and a range of other employment conditions. The government's position was presented by junior minister Kate Dearden, who argued that the compromise amendments negotiated with trade unions and business groups deliver on Labour's manifesto commitments while allowing the Bill to proceed rather than remaining stuck in legislative limbo. A point of controversy in the debate centred on the removal of a cap on employment tribunal compensation, which the Liberal Democrats claimed had been introduced without warning, though the minister disputed this, stating it had been agreed during negotiations.

Party lines held firm throughout the division. Labour and its Co-operative Party allies voted solidly for the motion, joined by Plaid Cymru and the Green Party. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Democratic Unionist Party, and Reform UK all voted against. The Liberal Democrats explained they would abstain but ultimately voted no, citing the compensation cap issue. Several Labour backbenchers raised concerns in debate, notably Ian Lavery, who questioned why the original manifesto commitment to day-one employment rights had been modified, though the government maintained its amendments still represented a significant advance for workers.