Ban on replacing sacked staff with agency workers in fire and rehire crackdown
Bad bosses will be banned from using agency staff to replace sacked employees as ministers close a loophole in workers' rights reforms.
The Employment Rights Bill, which is going through the House of Lords, seeks to ban fire and rehire tactics, where workers are forced onto worse terms to keep their jobs.
A new amendment will be laid this week to beef up the legislation to stop firms from firing workers and replacing them with agency staff.
Ministers want to prevent a repeat of the row when P&O Ferries sacked some 800 seafarers in March 2022 and replaced them with low-paid agency staff.
Writing in the Mirror, Deputy PM Angela Rayner said: "Businesses will still have the flexibility to hire contractors or agency workers to meet their needs.
"But these new changes will stop employees being replaced by others doing essentially the same job under worse conditions.
"We promised to call time on scandals like P&O and with this amendment we are removing any doubt. It's about time."
Like many Mirror readers, I know what it's like working hard and struggling to bring up a family on low and unpredictable pay, never knowing if I'd be able to make ends meet.
Just over a year ago, we came into government with a commitment to deliver change for working people – and we're getting on with the job.
Interest rates have been cut four times – a cost-of-living boost for every single person in Britain with a mortgage.
Three and a half million people got a huge boost to their pay packets in April thanks to our changes to the national minimum wage.
We're creating new jobs – 384,000 since the election – and helping hardworking families by rolling out breakfast clubs, meaning a £450 boost for parents.
But I get that people are impatient for change. That's why our plan to Make Work Pay is so personal to me.
We committed to waste no time once we were in government to making work fairer, more secure and more family-friendly, especially for the lowest-paid and facing poor working conditions.
Our landmark Employment Rights Bill going through Parliament will go even further to change lives.
This includes an end to the kind of disgraceful fire and rehire practices we all remember from the P&O scandal in 2022 that become a byword for business at its worst.
That's why today I can tell Mirror readers we are going further – this week we will be amending this landmark Bill to close loopholes so that people cannot be fired and replaced with agency workers.
Businesses will still have the flexibility to hire contractors or agency workers to meet their needs.
But these new changes will stop employees being replaced by others doing essentially the same job under worse conditions.
We promised to call time on scandals like P&O and with this amendment we are removing any doubt. It's about time.
Because for years, the good and secure jobs our parents and grandparents relied on have been replaced by low paid, insecure work.
That's been bad for workers and bad for the economy.
But thanks to our pro-growth Bill, over 15 million people stand to benefit.
That's why, as well ending disgraceful fire and rehire tactics, we're also banning exploitative zero hours contracts and giving every worker basic protections from their first day on the job – making sure they can't be sacked unfairly or threatened with dismissal for refusing lower terms and conditions, and can get sick pay when they need it.
These historic changes will deliver for millions.
More job security means more money spent on our high streets, more people able to get on the housing ladder and more prosperity across the UK.
This is what we promised to deliver, as part of our Plan for Change. It's a promise made, and a promise kept.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Victims of workplace abuse will no longer be silenced by NDAs, ministers will vow
Victims of workplace abuse will no longer be silenced by gagging orders, ministers vow today. The use of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to hush up staff who have suffered sexual abuse or bullying will be banned under a new addition to Angela Rayner 's major expansion of workers' rights. The proposed amendment to her controversial Employment Rights Bill, due to be debated in the House of Lords next week, will mean any confidentiality clauses in settlements will be null and void if they prevent staff from speaking out about allegations of harassment or discrimination. Witnesses to 'abhorrent behaviour' in offices will also be able to call it out without the threat of being sued, the Department for Business and Trade said. It comes after a campaign led by former Cabinet minister Louise Haigh and whistleblower Zelda Perkins, who helped expose disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. On Monday night Deputy Prime Minister Ms Rayner said: 'We have heard the calls from victims of harassment and discrimination to end the misuse of NDAs. 'It is time we stamped this practice out - and this government is taking action to make that happen. 'The Employment Rights Bill will ban any NDA used for this purpose, so that no one is forced to suffer in silence.' And Employment Rights Minister Justin Madders said: 'The misuse of NDAs to silence victims or harassment or discrimination is an appalling practice that this government has been determined to end. 'These amendments will give millions of workers confidence that inappropriate behaviour in the workplace will be dealt with, not hidden, allowing them to get on with building a prosperous and successful career.' However it represents a U-turn as until just a few months ago the Government had expressed 'reservations' about the ban. According to the Sunday Times, Mr Madders said in March: 'A worker may want to settle a dispute over harassment and receive the confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement. 'The proposal may also impact on their ability to reach a settlement and avoid going to an employment tribunal, or may indeed reduce the value of such an agreement.'
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
How could a UK wealth tax work? The impact examined
Rachel Reeves needs money. The government's successive U-turns on winter fuel payments and welfare combined with lower-than-expected growth forecasts mean she could be facing a £30 billion hole in the public finances come the autumn budget. So where will the money come from? Lord Kinnock, the former Labour leader, joined unions and left-wing MPs at the weekend in calling for a wealth tax. The political logic is clear: Kinnock and others on the left believe that the wealthiest should pay the most. The practicalities are complex. What assets would be taxed? How do you define wealth? Would it actually work, given the fact that wealthy people can choose to simply leave the country if they feel that the tax regime is too onerous. • Neil Kinnock: Labour should bring in 'wealth tax' to balance books A succession of countries have tried wealth taxes, only to reverse them following concerns about how much money they raised. So what are the potential options? Capital gains tax is paid on the profit made from the sale of assets such as property, shares and other investments. Presently, it is set at a lower rate than income tax, which critics say is inherently unfair. For example, a higher-rate taxpayer will pay just 24 per cent capital gains tax on the profit from selling a second home or shares, while if that money was income it would be taxed at 40 per cent. Critics say the system is flawed and benefits richer people whose income is derived from assets rather than work. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, suggested when in opposition that it should be levelled after Rishi Sunak, then the prime minister, disclosed that he was receiving significant sums through capital gains tax. In a report last year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said differences between capital gains tax and income tax were 'unfair', creating 'undesirable distortions, including to what people invest in and how they choose to work'. • No 10 and Treasury refuse to rule out wealth tax A recent report by the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation suggested that reforming capital gains tax, including the equalisation of rates, would raise an additional £14 billion. On Sunday, Kinnock suggested that Reeves should bring in a new tax on the assets of the super-wealthy that would be charged at a rate of 2 per cent on assets of more than £10 million. He suggested it could raise as much as £11 billion for the Treasury. Supporters say the new tax would affect just 20,000 people, who would have the ability to pay without experiencing a significant change in their financial situation. However, critics point out that the super-wealthy are also highly mobile and it could result in lower revenues for the Treasury if a significant number of those affected decide to leave the country. The additional rate of income tax for those earning more than £125,140 is levied at 45 per cent. Those on the left have consistently called for the rate to be raised to 50p, a rate last introduced by Labour in 2010 before being cut back in 2013 by the subsequent coalition government. Increasing the additional rate is a topic of significant contention. The Conservatives claim that a lower level brings in more income because it encourages wealthy people to stay in Britain. The IFS previously said that increasing it would make a 'marginal contribution' to the public finances. One of the biggest sources of wealth that most people have is their pension pots and successive chancellors have eyed this area as a potential source of additional income. The most radical option for Reeves would be to lower the rate of tax relief on pension contributions. At the moment, higher-rate taxpayers get 40 per cent tax relief on all contributions, while basic-rate taxpayers can claim 20 per cent. The IFS has calculated that limiting upfront relief to the basic rate of income tax would raise £15 billion a year. However, it would lead to claims of double taxation because people also pay income tax on their pensions. • Paul Johnson: Rachel Reeves will need to face up to fantasists on both sides One less controversial reform may be to cut or abolish the £268,275 that can be taken by people from their pension pot tax-free when they retire. This subsidy has an estimated long-run annual cost of £5.5 billion and 70 per cent of the relief goes to pensions accumulated by those in the top fifth of earners. Ed Miliband's 2015 Labour manifesto promised an annual levy on homes worth more than £2 million, promising to raise in excess of £1 billion a year. The plan would have affected tens of thousands of properties and raised concerns about 'asset-rich, cash-poor' pensioners being forced out of their homes. Associations with Labour's loss in the 2015 general election may dissuade ministers from returning to the idea, which progressives say should be broadened to include more fundamental reform of council taxes. Britain has some of the highest property taxes in the developed world, but the country's biggest homes get off lightly. Despite surging house prices over the past three decades, especially in London and the southeast, rates are still fixed on 1991 values. The biggest homes in an area pay only three times as much as the smallest, despite being far more valuable, while rates vary dramatically around the country. Infamous examples such as the three-bedroom semi in Hartlepool that pays more council tax than Buckingham Palace make the case for reform, but no government has dared since the poll tax, which contributed to the fall of Margaret Thatcher. Adjusting the tax to reflect today's values would result in a £60 fall for the poorest tenth of households and a £750 rise for the richest, the IFS estimates. Seeking to raise more money would push up bills further for wealthy homeowners, but lead to a furious political backlash.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Angela Rayner to ban businesses from using NDAs to cover up harassment and discrimination
UK businesses will be barred from using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to silence victims of harassment and discrimination as a part of the government's bid to boost workers' rights. Angela Rayne r has proposed an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill which would void and prohibit such agreements against employees in such situations to prevent people from having to 'suffer in silence'. The deputy prime minister said the government had 'heard the calls from victims of harassment and discrimination', as she announced the move following repeated calls from campaigners and Labour politicians. Zelda Perkins, Weinstein's former assistant and founder of the campaign group Can't Buy My Silence UK, said the move was 'a huge milestone'. She said: 'For years, we've heard empty promises from governments whilst victims have continued to be silenced, to see this Government accept the need for nationwide legal change shows that they have listened and understood the abuse of power taking place. 'Above all though, this victory belongs to people who broke their NDAs, who risked everything to speak the truth when they were told they couldn't. Without their courage, none of this would be happening.' And, last month, the Commons Women and Equalities Committee called on the Government to ban NDAs to tackle misogyny in the music industry. The change comes after several high-profile cases of NDAs being used to silence victims of sexual harassment or bullying. In the case of former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, victims were forced to breach such agreements to come forward. Zelda Perkins, Weinstein's former assistant and founder of the campaign group Can't Buy My Silence UK, said the move was 'a huge milestone'. She said: 'For years, we've heard empty promises from governments whilst victims have continued to be silenced, to see this Government accept the need for nationwide legal change shows that they have listened and understood the abuse of power taking place. 'Above all though, this victory belongs to people who broke their NDAs, who risked everything to speak the truth when they were told they couldn't. Without their courage, none of this would be happening.' Ms Haigh, who has raised the issue several times in Parliament, said the decision was 'an incredible victory for victims and campaigners' after years of 'tireless campaigning'. She said: 'This victory belongs to them. Organisations like Can't Buy My Silence, led by the indefatigable Zelda Perkins, have exposed the harm caused by this toxic practice. 'Today's announcement will mean that bad employers can no longer hide behind legal practices that cover up their wrongdoing and prevent victims from getting justice.' Ministers had previously indicated they were considering a ban on NDAs in cases of harassment and discrimination, while employment minister Justin Madders also called for a 'cultural shift in employers' earlier this year. Announcing the amendments, Mr Madders said: 'The misuse of NDAs to silence victims of harassment or discrimination is an appalling practice that this Government has been determined to end. 'These amendments will give millions of workers confidence that inappropriate behaviour in the workplace will be dealt with, not hidden, allowing them to get on with building a prosperous and successful career.' Peers will debate the amendments when the Employment Rights Bill returns to the Lords on July 14 and, if passed, will need to be approved by MPs as well.
