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?
Posts
