It is because the situation for workers is different when there is a transfer. When a company is taken over, we are talking about not just the contract being broken, but the transfer itself. Workers would still have rights, but they would not have the same rights as under TUPE. There are differences.
People are wrong: when somebody takes over a company, for example, TUPE does not mean that workers cannot be dismissed or made redundant. They can be made redundant. There is nothing stopping that, but that has to be shown not to be an arbitrary decision as a result of a takeover. It has to be shown—I forget exactly—that there are economic, technical or operational reasons. The same would apply under the Bill. Again, I am not talking about something draconian; I am talking about things that happen now, under TUPE. I want the same things to apply.
Private Equity (Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
John Heppell
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 7 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Private Equity (Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c2036;472 c2034 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:59:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_453137
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_453137
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_453137