← Back to House of Commons Debates
Fire and Rehire (Prohibition) Bill
22 October 2021
Lead MP
Barry Gardiner
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Employment
Other Contributors: 26
At a Glance
Barry Gardiner raised concerns about fire and rehire (prohibition) bill in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
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
This bill aims to address the issue of fire and rehire practices that have caused hardship for workers across Britain. The practice involves firing loyal employees who then must sign new contracts with worse terms and conditions upon being rehired, causing significant distress to families and undermining economic stability. Mr Gardiner highlights cases from various constituencies where workers faced severe emotional strain due to these practices. He cites a survey indicating that nearly 9% of workers experienced fire and rehire tactics in the past nine months, estimating this could affect up to 1.5 million people. The bill seeks to prevent such unfair treatment and level up working conditions.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
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.
Emma Hardy
Lab
Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice
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.
Hannah Bardell
SNP
Argyll and Bute
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.
Richard Fuller
Con
North Bedfordshire
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.
Stewart Hosie
SNP
Dundee East
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.
Ian Lavery
Lab
Blyth and Ashington
Supports Mr Gardiner's initiative and acknowledges its importance in protecting workers from unfair employment practices.
Eleanor Laing
Con
Uxbridge and South Ruislip
Called for proper procedure in addressing other Members and intervened briefly to acknowledge an intervention by Christian Wakeford.
Bury South
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.
Bridgend
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.
Mark Pawsey
Con
Banbury
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.
Geraint Davies
Lab
Swansea West
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.
Joy Morrissey
Con
Beaconsfield
Defended government's investment in skills training and challenged Geraint Davies' point on Germany, suggesting that cross-training is a key factor.
Marie Rimmer
Lab
St Helens South and Whiston
Condemned unscrupulous bosses for threatening workers' trade union support, highlighting a frightening environment for the public.
Matt Rodda
Lab
Reading Central
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.
Ruth Jones
Lab
Newport West
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.
Jo Gideon
Con
Dudley South
Questioned the impact of the proposed legislation on smaller businesses and sought context for its application beyond large companies.
Sally-Ann Hart
Lab
Lancaster and Fleetwood
Argued that post-Brexit, UK workers will be valued better as there won't be a surplus of European workers to undermine wages.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Warned about unintended consequences of legislation, questioning whether the Bill would actually ban fire and rehire practices as claimed.
Bury South
Reiterated that the policy targets bad business leaders, not banning 'fire and rehire' but making it a last resort.
Ben Everitt
Con
North East Cambridgeshire
Argued that growing the economy is the best way to ensure good treatment of employees and highlighted current economic growth rates.
Richard Fuller
Con
North Bedfordshire
Called for consideration of practical circumstances during crises, suggesting that some companies may opt for fire and no rehire to save their business.
Andy McDonald
Lab
Middlesbrough East
Used Ryanair as an example of good practice, emphasising that temporary adjustments can be made with future restoration commitments.
Laura Farris
Con
Berkshire West
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.
Mike Amesbury
Lab
Sheffield South East
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.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Mr Evans raises concerns about the pending threat of dismissal rather than actual dismissals, questioning how proposed legislation would address this specific issue.
Seema Malhotra
Lab Co-op
Feltham and Heston
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.
▸
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.