Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

The other would be to give the option to the union to obtain an injunction to prevent dismissals where there had been inadequate consultation and inadequate disclosure. For the reason that the committee’s recommendations do not find any reflection in the code of practice, I share my noble friend’s sense of regret at this code.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I regret that I did not have the pleasure of being present when the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, received its Second Reading a month or so ago. I clearly understand that the nature of that debate reflects very clearly on what we are debating today.

The Minister was not in your Lordships’ House when we debated the P&O issue. Had he been, he would have experienced outrage and hand-wringing, not just from these Benches but from the Benches behind him and indeed from the Dispatch Box itself. That outrage was felt across the whole of your Lordships’ House. As we have heard, this code was supposed to help embrace that issue and try to make sure that such outrages are not repeated. As we have heard in three well-made speeches from the Opposition Benches, we do not believe that this code comes close to doing that.

The code takes a very optimistic view of human nature: it infers that there are two willing parties with reasonable actions and beliefs. That is not the case that a code of conduct needs to deal with. When reasonable people negotiate with reasonable people, we do not need this code. This code is, essentially, how normal, reasonable people would act, and, as the Minister said, most companies are reasonable companies, and most employees operate with reason. That is why this code, in a sense, merely codifies what normal, civilised behaviour should be.

That is not what a code is for. A code is to deal with the people trying to operate outside normal, reasonable behaviour. On several occasions, the Minister used the word “ensure”. This does not ensure anything, and noble Lords do not have to take my word for it. Paragraph 12 says:

“A failure to follow the code does not, in itself, make a person or organisation liable to proceedings”.


In other words, any teeth it might have had in the first place have been removed by paragraph 12. I share the belief it really had no teeth.

Many other provisions in the code—for example, paragraphs 21 and 22—use the term “reasonable”. How would we test “reasonable” in this circumstance? In Section C, around information, I would be interested to know: what is reasonable? We then move to paragraph 27, which is about commercial sensitivity and confidentiality. In every case of fire and rehire, there will be commercial sensitivity. Therefore, it makes sure that no information ever gets put forward. I am old enough to remember when the United Kingdom was part of the European Union, and we were part of the European Works Council system. That excuse is not allowable within the European Works Council. There is a system within that whereby the works councils are brought into the confidence of the management about their intentions in such circumstances. This does not allow such reasonable behaviour to occur.

Given the genuine and heartfelt comments made opposite during the P&O issue, I am disappointed that this is the result. It is toothless, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, said on several occasions; it does not ensure that something such as P&O could never happen again. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, put it, the 25% uplift is not worth a hill of beans when you look at the financial gain it has made by the actions it has taken.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the code of practice and express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken.

Last week saw the two-year anniversary of the P&O Ferries dismissals, the highest-profile abuse of fire and rehire in recent years—but, sadly, not the only one. The Minister might say that the P&O case is not fire and rehire, but many will not agree with that sentiment. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Today the replaced workers are paid less than half the national wage, as my noble friend Lord Woodley referred to, in conditions that one described as like being in jail. Workers’ pay and conditions horrendously diminished. Meanwhile, the company and its parent, DP World, was awarded £230 million in UK government contracts between March 2022 and July 2023.

This injustice has driven me to extraordinary lengths: it has made me agree with the Member for Welwyn Hatfield, the right honourable Grant Shapps. When he was Secretary of State for Transport, he described the company as

“pirates of the high sea”.

I am even minded to agree with the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who said that fire and rehire was

“unacceptable as a negotiating tactic”.

The code does nothing to prevent any employer treating workers in a shabby way in the months and years to come.

Noble Lords who have run businesses, as I have, know what it is like to face difficult financial decisions. We understand that, in extreme cases, sometimes the only way to continue operating is to consult with employees on renegotiating contracts. If the company goes bust, nobody wins; everybody loses their job. Only in that situation can fire and rehire possibly be justified. Yet in court, employers do not have to prove that the fire and rehire policy would mean the difference between the life and death of the business. That widely criticised omission acts as a cloak of unaccountability, permitting employers to present unscrupulous decisions as unavoidable. All the well-intentioned recommendations in the code—that the employer “take into account” employee objections; that they engage in “all reasonable steps”; and that they do not raise the spectre of job losses too early in the process—are, in effect, neutered by this loophole.

Furthermore, several noble Lords have referred to the potential sanctions—a 25% uplift in fines at the end of a long David and Goliath legal battle—that could be factored in as a cost of doing business, as the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hendy, stated. We could see companies rewarding executives who are prepared to brush off a few bad PR headlines while making workers’ lives worse. That is appalling in principle and in practice.

The P&O Ferries example should serve as a warning; even the then Prime Minister Johnson thought so. The code does not prevent a race to the bottom; it could lead to a hollowing out of secure jobs. Roads paved with good intentions—whether labelled promises, pledges or non-binding codes of practice—lead only in one direction. It is the workers, threatened with either losing their jobs or accepting worse conditions, who end up feeling the heat. The code currently makes no reference to a necessary qualifying period of employment before it becomes applicable to an employee. Can the Minister tell the House whether the code is applicable from day one for all employees?

In light of the range of concerns raised from only 50 responses to the consultation, I hope that the Minister and the Government will address the shortcomings of the proposal. To that end, my noble friend Lord Woodley’s amendment sets out clearly why the Government should reconsider.