Fire and Rehire (Prohibition) Bill

Acknowledges the importance of making Britain a good place to work but also stresses that creating an environment conducive to starting and growing businesses is crucial for employment opportunities. He expresses concern about the survey results indicating limited occurrences of fire and rehire practices.

Agrees with Mr Gardiner, emphasising that taxpayers will bear the cost if companies reduce workers' wages through fire and rehire practices by increasing reliance on benefits such as universal credit.

Commends Mr Gardiner for his efforts in highlighting the issues of fire and rehire tactics, particularly those experienced by Tesco drivers in her constituency who faced significant financial insecurity due to these practices.

Acknowledges that while the practice is unacceptable and should be addressed, he suggests limiting the scope of the bill based on limited occurrences reported in surveys. He proposes addressing fire and rehire practices specifically within a smaller context.

Agrees with Mr Gardiner's point that no employee should face threats or menaces to their employment terms and conditions, underlining the principle behind the bill.

Supports Mr Gardiner's initiative and acknowledges its importance in protecting workers from unfair employment practices.

Called for proper procedure in addressing other Members and intervened briefly to acknowledge an intervention by Christian Wakeford.

Emphasised that it is necessary to have discussions with companies on restructuring while protecting workers from aggressive tactics. Cited moral and popular support for the bill.

Stressed that the Bill does not prevent necessary discussions but seeks to stop companies from threatening workers with firing if they do not accept changes. Highlighted the importance of debating options in Committee.

Argued that businesses should have flexibility to discuss changes with unions and adjust working conditions to maintain competitiveness, citing evidence from British Gas Centrica about employee compensation disparities.

Cited Germany's approach to productivity and worker protection, arguing that training workers is more productive than firing them. Quoted a Productivity Institute report to highlight the negative impact of one-sided flexibility in UK labour markets.

Defended government's investment in skills training and challenged Geraint Davies' point on Germany, suggesting that cross-training is a key factor.

Condemned unscrupulous bosses for threatening workers' trade union support, highlighting a frightening environment for the public.

Provided local examples of negative impacts from 'fire and rehire' practices on morale and reputation of companies, arguing for a long-term approach to business.

Stressed that many profitable companies are engaging in fire-and-rehire tactics not as a last resort but due to profit motives, questioning their necessity.

Questioned the impact of the proposed legislation on smaller businesses and sought context for its application beyond large companies.

Argued that post-Brexit, UK workers will be valued better as there won't be a surplus of European workers to undermine wages.

Warned about unintended consequences of legislation, questioning whether the Bill would actually ban fire and rehire practices as claimed.

Reiterated that the policy targets bad business leaders, not banning 'fire and rehire' but making it a last resort.

Argued that growing the economy is the best way to ensure good treatment of employees and highlighted current economic growth rates.

Called for consideration of practical circumstances during crises, suggesting that some companies may opt for fire and no rehire to save their business.

Used Ryanair as an example of good practice, emphasising that temporary adjustments can be made with future restoration commitments.

Ms Farris argues that the Employment Relations Bill poses risks to workers' rights and exacerbates industrial relations issues. She highlights existing protections in common law against fire and rehire practices, noting that employment tribunals have a mechanism for assessing fairness based on substantial reasons and reasonableness tests. However, she also suggests that there might be gaps where judges do not scrutinize employer explanations thoroughly enough. Farris indicates concerns about the proposed new section 27C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as it could practically ban fire and rehire, affecting economic recovery efforts.

Mr Amesbury intervenes to argue that existing measures are insufficient. He supports his hon. Friend's Bill, emphasising the need for fairness in workplace practices and referencing the impact of fire and rehire on constituents.

Mr Evans raises concerns about the pending threat of dismissal rather than actual dismissals, questioning how proposed legislation would address this specific issue.

Ms Malhotra highlights the economic uncertainty affecting thousands of aviation workers in her constituency, emphasising the financial impact on constituents due to reduced incomes by up to £8,000 a year. She questions Farris's proposals and their potential effectiveness.