Employment Law: Unfair Dismissal Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Lord Clinton-Davis

Main Page: Lord Clinton-Davis (Labour - Life peer)

Employment Law: Unfair Dismissal

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts
Thursday 24th November 2011

(12 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Asked By
Lord Clinton-Davis Portrait Lord Clinton-Davis
- Hansard - -



To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have regarding the future of the law on unfair dismissal.

Baroness Wilcox Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, recruiting a new employee is an important decision for any employer so we need to balance very carefully flexibility for the employer and security for the employee. The Government therefore intend to increase the qualification period for unfair dismissal from one to two years to help give firms the confidence to take people on. We will also be seeking more evidence, particularly on whether further steps in this area would help boost the confidence of micro-businesses to employ people.

Lord Clinton-Davis Portrait Lord Clinton-Davis
- Hansard - -

Why is the noble Baroness so mealy-mouthed about this issue? It is a disgraceful report, allowing employees to be dismissed without any explanation at all. Adrian Beecroft—a multimillionaire, venture capitalist and donor of more than half a million pounds to the Conservative Party—said that some people will be dismissed simply because their employers do not like them. Is that acceptable?

Baroness Wilcox Portrait Baroness Wilcox
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We are concerned with the aim of extending the qualifying period in order to improve business confidence in recruiting staff and giving more time to getting the work relationship right. That is why we are doing it. I do not know how I can respond to the other part of the question. Adrian Beecroft was asked to contribute his thoughts to government to support our work examining the burden of employment-related law and he gave them. There are things in there that I think might be very much his own personal viewpoint, because that is what he was asked to give.