The man behind the controversial ‘compensated no fault dismissals’ proposals appeared before a committe of MPs yesterday and got a hostile reception.
Entrepreneur Adrian Beecroft appeared before the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill committee theoretically to discuss proposed new legislation, but instead found himself having to defend his stnace on previous recommendations.
Opposition MPs questioned Beefcroft’s methodology when reaching conclusions. with Chris Ruane MP asking why he had "failed to use empirical evidence", despite being a "trained scientist" and why he was pushing "policy by parable and legislation by anecdote".
Labour MP Geraint Davies went further: "It just seems to me that you’ve failed to look at robust, empirical evidence and relied on unreliable, out-of-date, anecdotal evidence to come to these prejudicial conclusions. I just want to know why you didn’t look at reliable, quantitative studies and instead relied on unreliable, out-of-date opinion data which didn’t translate into the real world?"
Beecroft said the logic behind his recommendations was "self-evident" and retorted: "I researched all of the work that is available on these issues. Unfortunately there is not much work available. I will accept the accusation that my views… are based on conversations with not a statistically valid sample of people.
‘I should say that the work I was asked to do was a two-month piece of work covering all employment law so I was not able to generate new statistics," he added. "I will accept the accusation that my views on whether or not this would improve the efficiency of people working in businesses is based on conversations, not a statistically valid sample of people."
He said that the “modest disadvantage” of those losing their jobs were “far outweighed” by the benefits that would accrue. “You have to balance up the rights of current employees and the rights of people who are unemployed but might be employed if the people running small businesses had the time left to grow them," he insisted.
"If people are doing a job that is required but they are not doing it very well, they will be replaced. If people are doing a job that is not necessary, they will be made redundant."
But Norman Lamb, the employment minister, rejected Beecroft’s original proposal last week after citing evidence from Germany where a similar measure was introduced. He has settled on a compromise which makes it simpler for employers to ease out underperforming staff in return for a pay-off, but only voluntarily.
Beecroft said he wished the government had gone further, but added: "I don’t think the compromise we’re talking about would have happened if I hadn’t written the report."
