Asked whether the motion would stop Willie Walsh from threatening to fire and rehire 10,000 air stewards at British Airways. Also questioned if the extra 25% deterrent was enough given that it might save businesses more money in the long run than adhering to the code.

Expressed concern that the code looks optimistic and may be toothless in dealing with companies operating outside of normal practice, questioning its effectiveness in addressing poor practices.

We welcome the order but argue it does not go far enough to address fire and rehire. Since the P&O Ferries case, there has been a significant rise in employers using fire and rehire as a tactic. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that between August 2021 and March 2023, instances nearly doubled. ACAS advised that penalties may not always be strong deterrents for egregious breaches. We propose uncapped sanctions based on the facts to discourage law-breaking employers from pricing in the cost of legal violations. Smaller transgressions should still allow for proportional consequences, but serious abuses must face potentially higher costs than compliance. The current 25% uplift is insufficient and may not deter bad actors who can afford to break the law. The order’s scope leaves out smaller establishments and certain worker categories. Tribunal fees will inhibit enforcement of rights. We oppose provisions reducing compensation when employees unreasonably fail to comply with codes.

Emphasises that large businesses can absorb costs small firms cannot, suggesting the regulations need to address this disparity for effective deterrence.

Stephens refers to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and expresses disappointment that a long-awaited Employment Bill has not materialised. He discusses the persistence of fire and rehire practices despite the Taylor review recommendations, highlighting its detrimental impact on workers' dignity and fairness in the labour market. Stephens supports private Member's Bills tabled by his colleague to outlaw fire and rehire and raises concerns about potential employer evasion of penalties through financial calculation, urging for greater transparency and enforcement measures.

Hollinrake addresses the debate by acknowledging the Labour Party's position but counters with examples suggesting that dismissal and re-engagement can be necessary for business survival. He criticises the language used to describe fire and rehire as overly negative, arguing that most employers act honourably towards their employees. Hollinrake explains that the order will increase penalties for non-compliance with collective consultation requirements and emphasises the importance of balance between labour market flexibility and safeguarding workers' rights.