I’ve referred to the Beecroft report previously. The Prime Minister asked Beecroft, a venture capitalist, to review employment laws and come up with some suggestions for cutting red tape, which Beecroft duly did. The main thrust of his idea of cutting red tape seems to have been whittling away hard-gained employment rights in the name of flexibility.
From earlier reports, most people will have assumed that there was at least some basis for his claims that he was putting forward the views of ‘business’ in general; but it seems from this report that was a wildly inaccurate conclusion. In fact, the recommendations seem to have been put forward on the basis of what he and a few of his (presumably like-minded) mates think.
He didn’t have time to do any research or investigation into what businesses in general might think, so he had a chat with a few people and then sat down to write his report. And, on such a flimsy basis, the government is proceeding to implement the bulk of his recommendations.
But then, if you think – as he said he did – that the case for making it easier for small firms to hire and fire people is ‘self-evident’, then what need is there for any objective evidence? And why should anyone expect the PM to require any more evidence than that?