← Back to House of Commons Debates
Employment Rights Bill 2025-12-15
15 December 2025
Lead MP
Kate Dearden
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
EconomyTaxationEmployment
Other Contributors: 25
At a Glance
Kate Dearden raised concerns about employment rights bill 2025-12-15 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Employment Rights Bill aims to extend employment protections to all workers, addressing the concerns raised by the Lords amendments. The Minister emphasises that removing the unfair dismissal compensation cap is crucial for protecting employees' rights and ensuring statutory sick pay from April. She highlights successful negotiations with trade unions and business representatives and urges the House to support this motion despite opposition in the Lords.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Questions whether any British company offers unlimited compensation for unfair dismissal, expressing concern about sending a message that could impact business recruitment.
Angela Rayner
Lab
Ashton-under-Lyne
Calls for urgency in passing the Bill to meet the April deadline and criticises the Lords' blocking of government proposals on statutory sick pay, emphasising the importance of fulfilling manifesto promises.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Expresses concern that removing the compensation cap will be detrimental for businesses, urging the Minister to reconsider her position given the potential impact on employment and business stability.
Aphra Brandreth
Con
Chester South and Eddisbury
Questions whether introducing an uncapped unfair dismissal compensation award aligns with international standards, expressing concern about its impact on UK jobs and inward investment in business sectors that are internationally mobile.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Asks the Minister to provide an economic assessment of the proposed changes, questioning the feasibility and cost implications of removing the compensation cap without thorough analysis.
Paul Waugh
Lab/Co-op
Rochdale
Supports the Minister's stance on removing the compensation cap, highlighting that only 2% of all employment tribunals result in a compensation award for unfair dismissal and emphasising the fairness to workers and businesses alike.
Tom Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
Raises concerns about insurance companies' ability to underwrite risk without a maximum cap, questioning whether the Minister has engaged with insurers on these challenges.
Angela Rayner
Lab
Rotherham
The right hon. Member defends protecting workers from unfair dismissal, emphasising Labour's commitment to secure jobs and addressing insecure work conditions. She challenges the opposition's focus on the compensation cap.
Ashley Fox
Con
Bridgwater
Questions the absence of consultation prior to the bill introduction compared to previous instances under different governments, implying a lack of thoroughness in current policy-making.
Laurence Turner
Lab
Birmingham Northfield
Challenges the argument that removing the cap benefits only wealthy employees by questioning if there are any CEOs who would seek recourse to employment tribunals, highlighting a lack of practical impact from the proposed changes.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley and Holderness
Questions Labour's shift in stance on the issue since their manifesto promises, suggesting that the party is now more aligned with union interests than ordinary workers' needs.
Justin Madders
Lab
Ellesmere Port and Bromborough
Defends the government's position on removing the cap, emphasising the need to proceed as a mature political move despite opposition from peers. He argues that the Lords’ arguments are more about seeking finality than addressing substantive concerns.
Sarah Olney
LD
Richmond Park
Olney acknowledges the Liberal Democrats' support for many of the Bill's aims but expresses significant concerns about its implementation, particularly regarding the lack of clarity on unfair dismissal and probation periods. She supports setting the qualifying period at six months, which she sees as beneficial for both businesses and workers.
Evans inquires if Olney is voting for or against the cap, highlighting the debate's focal point.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
Mr. Simmonds argues that the removal of a limit on the cap will have a significant impact on businesses, particularly large organisations in the public sector such as the NHS. He states there has been no consultation or impact assessment provided to the House. He criticises the current bill for raising barriers to entry for new workers and harming young people's job prospects.
Mark Sewards
Lab
Leeds South West and Morley
Mr. Sewards discusses his support for removing hereditary peers from the other place, arguing that individuals should not shape laws based on their family background. He emphasises the importance of passing this bill to strengthen workers' rights.
David Reed
Con
Exmouth and Exeter East
Mr. Reed questions whether there is merit in arguments made by hereditary peers from across the political divide, suggesting that life peers appointed due to their expertise should be given more credence.
Bradley Thomas
Con
Bromsgrove
Mr. Thomas argues that removing the employment tribunal cap will make matters worse by opening floodgates for senior executives to pursue multimillion-pound claims, further congesting the courts and creating significant liabilities for companies.
Gareth Snell
Lab/Co-op
Stoke-on-Trent Central
Mr. Snell is mentioned but does not provide a full contribution in the given text.
Ashley Fox
Con
Redditch
The debate is a result of the House of Lords sending back an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, which is the first time the Commons has had the opportunity to consider it since last year when Sir Ashley and Laurence Turner sat on the Bill Committee.
Laurence Turner
Lab
Wolverhampton South West
The only reason for the current short debate period is due to the delay caused by Conservative actions. The Opposition's amendment from the Lords was carried last week thanks to votes from hereditary peers. If this amendment were not rejected, it would collapse employer and union agreements and significantly delay April's statutory sick pay and parental leave extensions.
Maidenhead
Asked if the Government is planning to abolish hereditary peers. This question was interrupted by Madam Deputy Speaker who reminded them they were debating the Lords message on amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.
Laurence Turner
Lab
Wolverhampton South West
Rejected the idea that a review would be reasonable without the necessary powers in place. Emphasised the need to reject the amendment to respect the Commons mandate and avoid delays in implementing fundamental rights.
Jerome Mayhew
Con
Broadland and Fakenham
Critiqued the Liberal Democrats for their change in support regarding union strikes and guaranteed hours after receiving peerages. Highlighted Lords amendment 120N, which seeks to clarify the process of imposing the £118,000 cap on compensatory awards without proper risk assessment or consultation.
Sarah Olney
LD
Richmond Park
Responded to accusations of selling principles for peerages by explaining the basis for their change in support. Dismissed implications of corruption and requested Madam Deputy Speaker to address inappropriate comments.
Government Response
The Employment Rights Bill seeks to remove the unfair dismissal compensation cap and extend statutory sick pay. The Minister argues that removing this cap is essential for protecting workers' rights, emphasising successful negotiations with trade unions and business representatives who support the proposed changes. She urges colleagues in the Lords to pass the Bill to avoid further delay and implementation risks. Emphasised that lifting the cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal is crucial to ensuring fair compensation for claimants while deterring employers from treating unfair dismissals as business as usual. Rejected claims of inadequate consultation, highlighting a tripartite agreement with businesses and unions forged through dialogue. Stressed that further delay risks leaving workers without protections and businesses without clarity.
Shadow Response
Andrew Griffith
Shadow Response
Conservative concerns about the Employment Rights Bill are longstanding, particularly regarding job losses and youth unemployment. The shadow Secretary of State criticises the government for a lack of trust in business communities and highlights rising unemployment rates as evidence against passing the Bill.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.