Slash red tape for businesses
Reform UK · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Slash red tape for businesses” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Personal liberty & free speech — Helps
moderate · moderate confidence
Scrapping thousands of employment laws removes state-imposed mandates on how businesses and individuals structure work contracts, which directly reduces the scope of state coercion in the employment sphere. The main caveat is that the detailed scope of repeal is unconfirmed and much of the characterisation comes from third-party analysis rather than official policy text.
The evidence
- The policy commits to scrapping thousands of laws, including employment laws, to make it easier to hire and fire staff. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will scrap thousands of laws, including employment laws, that they claim hold back British business and damage productivity, to make it easier to hire and fire staff.”
- The mechanism is described as a 'Great Repeal Bill' targeting major legislation including the Employment Rights Act 2025. — londonlovesbusiness.com (media) — “Reform UK has indicated that if elected, it would introduce a "Great Repeal Bill" to abolish major legislation, including the Employment Rights Act 2025”
- Third-party analysis suggests the policy would likely reverse enhanced unfair dismissal protections introduced by the ERA 2025. — tribunalclaimsolicitors.co.uk (media) — “Reform UK's policy would likely reverse these enhanced protections”
- Third-party analysis characterises the policy as aiming to reduce guaranteed-hours obligations and weaken compensation requirements for cancelled shifts. — londonlovesbusiness.com (media) — “Reform UK aims to reduce these guaranteed-hours obligations and weaken requirements for compensation for cancelled shifts”
- Third-party analysis characterises the policy as seeking to soften restrictions on fire and rehire practices. — londonlovesbusiness.com (media) — “Reform UK seeks to soften these restrictions”
- Third-party analysis characterises the policy as aiming to reduce trade union powers introduced under recent reforms. — londonlovesbusiness.com (media) — “Reform UK aims to reduce trade union powers introduced under recent reforms”
- The ERA 2025 introduced statutory duties such as employers informing workers of their right to join a trade union and updated rules on union access. — acas.org.uk (media) — “The ERA 2025 includes new duties for employers to inform workers of their right to join a trade union and updated rules on union access to the workplace”
Biggest unknown: Whether the 'Great Repeal Bill' would confine itself to employment law or extend to other regulatory domains, and how much of it would survive parliamentary process.
Our reading: O10 is concerned with freedom from state coercion — mandates, licensing, and compulsory duties imposed by law on individuals and entities. Employment law is a body of state-imposed mandates: employers are legally required under the ERA 2025 to offer guaranteed hours, observe prescribed notice periods, comply with unfair dismissal rules, inform workers of union rights, and follow statutory sick pay frameworks. The policy, as stated, commits to scrapping thousands of such laws. Removing these mandates directly reduces the volume of state coercion operating in the employment relationship. By the O10 criteria, this registers as an improvement: the policy withdraws state-imposed obligations rather than adding surveillance, criminalising speech, or imposing new mandates. The scale — 'thousands of laws' and the whole ERA 2025 — supports a moderate rather than minor magnitude. The time horizon is this-parliament, as a Great Repeal Bill would need to pass in a single parliamentary term. Critics note that many of these laws protect workers from private-party coercion. That is a real and important effect, but it belongs on O4 (Good work and fair pay) and O9 (Equal treatment), not O10. O10 scores the state-coercion dimension alone. The key limitation is that most of the detailed characterisation of what would be repealed comes from third-party analysis (projected tier) rather than official policy text, so the exact scope remains uncertain — hence moderate rather than high confidence.
Prosperity & living standards — Genuinely contested
n/a · low confidence
Scrapping employment laws would reduce business costs and increase hiring flexibility, but credible evidence is genuinely split on whether this boosts or damages long-run productivity and living standards. The answer depends on an unresolved empirical question about whether labour-market deregulation helps or hinders productivity at scale.
The evidence
- The policy would scrap thousands of laws, including employment laws, to make it easier to hire and fire staff. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will scrap thousands of laws, including employment laws, that they claim hold back British business and damage productivity, to make it easier to hire and fire staff.”
- The policy would include repealing the Employment Rights Act 2025 via a 'Great Repeal Bill'. — londonlovesbusiness.com (media) — “Reform UK has indicated that if elected, it would introduce a”
- The government's own analysis estimated the ERA 2025 costs businesses £4.5 billion annually, potentially rising to £5 billion, and would increase the total wage bill by 0.4%. — opusllp.com (media) — “The government's own analysis of the ERA 2025 (which Reform UK aims to repeal) estimated the annual cost to businesses at £4.5 billion, potentially rising to £5 billion, and predicted a 0.4% increase in the total wage bi…”
- Pro-deregulation analysts (Adam Smith Institute — advocacy source) argue that easier hiring and firing fosters a more adaptable and dynamic economy needed for productivity. — adamsmith.org (media) — “The Adam Smith Institute suggests that easier hiring and firing fosters a more adaptable and dynamic economy, which is needed for productivity”
- Research cited by digit-research notes that specific labour laws regulating flexible working, working time, and employee representation can have positive productivity effects. — digit-research.org (media) — “specific labour laws (e.g., those regulating flexible working, working time, and employee representation) can have positive productivity effects”
- The World Bank has acknowledged that worker protections can increase job stability and improve productivity. — digit-research.org (media) — “The World Bank also shifted its stance, acknowledging that worker protections can”
- The government's impact assessment of the ERA 2025 projected it would increase employment by around 0.1% and GDP by around 0.04%, implying repeal would reverse these gains. — assets.publishing.service.gov.uk (government) — “modelling indicated it could increase employment by around 0.1% and GDP by around 0.04%”
- Analysts including the Resolution Foundation and TUC suggest deregulation could lead to increased job insecurity, lower wages, higher inequality, and may not deliver promised productivity gains. — digit-research.org (media) — “such deregulation could lead to increased job insecurity, lower wages, higher inequality, and may not necessarily deliver the promised productivity gains, with some evidence indicating that stronger worker protections ca…”
- There is genuine expert disagreement about whether labour market regulation constrains or supports productivity growth. — economicshelp.org (media) — “There is a genuine disagreement among experts regarding the link between labour market regulation and productivity”
Biggest unknown: Whether labour-market deregulation raises productivity and real living standards or depresses them through lower wages, greater insecurity, and weaker worker commitment — a question on which credible institutional sources (government impact assessment, World Bank, Resolution Foundation) and pro-market advocates (Adam Smith Institute) reach opposite conclusions.
Our reading: The policy would eliminate substantial regulatory obligations — including the ERA 2025, which the government's own analysis estimated costs businesses £4.5 billion annually. Reducing these costs could free capital for investment and lower barriers to hiring, which pro-deregulation analysts (primarily the Adam Smith Institute, an advocacy source) argue would boost dynamism and productivity. However, the pro-deregulation case rests heavily on that advocacy source, which must be down-weighted per sourcing rules. On the other side, the government's own modelling projected the ERA 2025 would increase employment by 0.1% and GDP by 0.04% — implying repeal would reverse those gains. Research cited from digit-research finds specific labour laws can have positive productivity effects, and the World Bank has acknowledged worker protections can improve job stability and productivity. Resolution Foundation and TUC project deregulation leads to insecurity, lower wages, and higher inequality — outcomes that are directly adverse for O13's living-standards indicators. The crux is genuinely unresolved: credible institutional sources and the government's own impact assessment lean toward worker protections supporting productivity, while market-efficiency arguments point the other way. Because the deciding parameter — the net effect on productivity and real living standards from this scale of deregulation — spans a range that honest evidence cannot narrow, and both sides rest on real (if contested) modelling, the verdict is too-uncertain. A verdict of 'improves' would require citing evidence that deregulation at this scale raises productivity in comparable economies, which the provided evidence does not establish; 'worsens' would require dismissing the business-cost-reduction mechanism, which is also real.
Inequality & fair shares — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
Scrapping employment protections would remove rights that mainly benefit lower-paid and insecure workers, likely widening the income gap. The main uncertainty is whether any job-creation effect from deregulation would offset that distributional harm.
The evidence
- The policy would scrap thousands of laws including employment laws to make it easier to hire and fire staff. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “scrap thousands of laws, including employment laws, that they claim hold back British business and damage productivity, to make it easier to hire and fire staff”
- Reform UK has indicated it would introduce a Great Repeal Bill to abolish the Employment Rights Act 2025. — londonlovesbusiness.com (media) — “introduce a "Great Repeal Bill" to abolish major legislation, including the Employment Rights Act 2025, which recently became law”
- The ERA 2025 was set to extend Statutory Sick Pay to 1 million additional workers and give 2.4 million workers new protections against last-minute shift changes. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “ERA 2025 was set to benefit 1 million additional workers with Statutory Sick Pay and 2.4 million workers vulnerable to last-minute changes would gain new protections”
- Repealing the ERA 2025 would likely remove guaranteed-hours obligations and weaken compensation for cancelled shifts. — londonlovesbusiness.com (media) — “Reform UK aims to reduce these guaranteed-hours obligations and weaken requirements for compensation for cancelled shifts”
- Repealing the ERA 2025 would likely reverse enhanced unfair dismissal protections it introduced. — tribunalclaimsolicitors.co.uk (media) — “Reform UK's policy would likely reverse these enhanced protections”
- Deregulation of this kind can exacerbate income inequality and increase relative poverty for low-income workers through wage compression and job insecurity. — tutor2u.net (media) — “deregulation can exacerbate income inequality and increase relative poverty, particularly for low-income workers, as they face wage compression and job insecurity”
- Labour market deregulation can result in an increase in low-paid and insecure jobs and potentially stagnating wages. — tutor2u.net (media) — “labour market deregulation can result in an increase in low-paid and insecure jobs, weakening trade union power, and potentially stagnating wages”
- The TUC (advocacy source) argues that decades of deregulation have led to high inequality and stagnant wages. — tuc.org.uk (media) — “decades of deregulation have led to high inequality and stagnant wages”
- Proponents of deregulation, including the Adam Smith Institute (advocacy), argue easier hiring and firing can encourage job creation and increase labour market adaptability. — adamsmith.org (media) — “making it easier to hire and fire can increase the adaptability of the labour market, encourage job creation, and help businesses adjust to economic changes”
- Analyses from the Resolution Foundation and TUC, supported by government impact assessments, suggest deregulation could lead to increased job insecurity, lower wages, and higher inequality, with some evidence that stronger worker protections contribute positively to economic performance. — digit-research.org (media) — “analyses from organisations like the Resolution Foundation and the TUC, supported by government impact assessments of recent worker-protective legislation, suggest that such deregulation could lead to increased job insec…”
Biggest unknown: Whether deregulation generates enough additional employment and wage growth at the bottom to offset the loss of statutory protections for low-paid workers — the evidence on this is genuinely contested but leans negative for inequality.
Our reading: O14 is judged on the distributional direction: does the gap between richest and rest widen or narrow? The policy's core mechanism is removing employment protections, most of which directly benefit workers in lower-paid, less secure jobs. Repeal of the ERA 2025 would strip SSP access from around 1 million workers and remove shift-change protections from 2.4 million (E18). Third-party analysis of what repeal would likely mean in practice indicates removal of guaranteed-hours rights, weakened compensation for cancelled shifts (E3), and reversal of enhanced unfair dismissal protections (E7) — each of these effects falls disproportionately on workers who lack individual bargaining power and rely on statutory floors. The distributional projection from E19 (backed by tutor2u and TUC, labelled accordingly as including an advocacy source) and E17 both point to wage compression and increased job insecurity for low-income workers as the likely outcome of this type of deregulation. The broader synthesis in E36 — drawing on Resolution Foundation and TUC analysis alongside government impact assessments — reinforces this direction. The counterfactual upside — that deregulation creates enough new jobs at the bottom to offset lost protections — is advanced primarily by the Adam Smith Institute (advocacy) in E12 and is contested by the weight of cited institutional and cross-source evidence in E36. The Adam Smith Institute argument earns candidacy, not a verdict; no cited independent evidence shows that wage-floor gains from this type of deregulation outweigh distributional losses. The verdict is therefore 'worsens' at moderate magnitude, reflecting a real but not catastrophic distributional shift concentrated over the parliamentary term. Confidence is moderate because the magnitude depends on which provisions are actually repealed and the pace of any labour market adjustment.
Good work & fair pay — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
Scrapping employment laws would remove protections like sick pay from day one, guaranteed hours, and stronger unfair dismissal rights from millions of workers, making jobs less secure and pay less certain. While deregulation supporters argue it could boost hiring, the weight of institutional evidence suggests it would increase insecurity and inequality, especially for low-paid workers.
The evidence
- The policy would scrap thousands of employment laws to make it easier to hire and fire staff. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will scrap thousands of laws, including employment laws, that they claim hold back British business and damage productivity, to make it easier to hire and fire staff.”
- Reform UK would abolish the Employment Rights Act 2025 via a Great Repeal Bill. — londonlovesbusiness.com (media) — “Reform UK has indicated that if elected, it would introduce a "Great Repeal Bill" to abolish major legislation, including the Employment Rights Act 2025”
- Reform UK is expected to reduce guaranteed-hours obligations and weaken requirements for compensation for cancelled shifts. — londonlovesbusiness.com (media) — “Reform UK aims to reduce these guaranteed-hours obligations and weaken requirements for compensation for cancelled shifts”
- Reform UK is expected to soften restrictions on fire and rehire practices. — londonlovesbusiness.com (media) — “Reform UK seeks to soften these restrictions”
- Reform UK's policy would likely reverse the enhanced unfair dismissal protections introduced by the ERA 2025. — tribunalclaimsolicitors.co.uk (media) — “Reform UK's policy would likely reverse these enhanced protections”
- The ERA 2025 removed the three-day waiting period for SSP and the lower earnings limit, and removed qualifying periods for parental leave. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “The ERA 2025 removed the three-day waiting period for SSP and the lower earnings limit for eligibility, and removed qualifying periods for paternity and ordinary parental leave”
- The ERA 2025 was projected to benefit 1 million additional workers with Statutory Sick Pay and give 2.4 million workers new protections against last-minute shift changes. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “the ERA 2025 was set to benefit 1 million additional workers with Statutory Sick Pay and 2.4 million workers vulnerable to last-minute changes would gain new protections”
- Deregulation of the labour market can result in more low-paid and insecure jobs, weaker trade union power, and stagnating wages. — tutor2u.net (media) — “labour market deregulation can result in an increase in low-paid and insecure jobs, weakening trade union power, and potentially stagnating wages”
- Deregulation could exacerbate income inequality and increase relative poverty for low-income workers. — tutor2u.net (media) — “deregulation can exacerbate income inequality and increase relative poverty, particularly for low-income workers, as they face wage compression and job insecurity”
- Proponents argue that easier hiring and firing increases labour market adaptability and encourages job creation. — adamsmith.org (media) — “making it easier to hire and fire can increase the adaptability of the labour market, encourage job creation, and help businesses adjust to economic changes”
- The government's own analysis of the ERA 2025 projected it would increase employment by around 0.1% and GDP by around 0.04%. — assets.publishing.service.gov.uk (government) — “modelling indicated it could increase employment by around 0.1% and GDP by around 0.04%”
- There is genuine expert disagreement on whether deregulation boosts productivity; the World Bank has acknowledged that worker protections can improve job stability and productivity. — digit-research.org (media) — “The World Bank also shifted its stance, acknowledging that worker protections can "increase job stability" and "improve productivity"”
Biggest unknown: Whether easier hiring and firing would generate enough new, better-paid jobs to offset the loss of security for existing workers — the empirical evidence on this trade-off is genuinely contested.
Our reading: This policy would directly unwind a substantial set of worker protections — sick pay from day one, guaranteed hours, stronger unfair dismissal rights, and fire-and-rehire restrictions — that were enacted to improve pay security and job quality for vulnerable workers. The ERA 2025 concretely removed the SSP waiting period and earnings threshold, benefiting workers already in employment. Third-party analyses project that scrapping these protections would reduce guaranteed hours, weaken sick pay entitlements, and make dismissal easier, with projected losses running to millions of workers based on ERA impact assessments. The direction of effect on O4's core indicators — pay security, job quality, in-work poverty — is therefore negative for these groups. The deregulation case rests on projected gains: that flexibility encourages employers to hire more, raising employment and potentially wages over time. This is a real argument with theoretical backing, but the institutional evidence (Resolution Foundation, TUC, World Bank, and the government's own ERA impact assessment) leans against the proposition that deregulation of this kind improves job quality or wages for ordinary workers, particularly low-paid ones. The Adam Smith Institute's counter-view is noted but comes from an advocacy source and is not corroborated by the institutional evidence provided. The productivity evidence is genuinely split, which lowers confidence slightly, but on the O4 indicators most relevant to ordinary workers — security, pay adequacy, and in-work poverty — the evidence leans toward worsening. Magnitude is moderate: the policy would affect millions of workers and reverse concrete, recently enacted gains, but the employment-level effects and any offsetting hiring gains are uncertain. The time horizon is this-parliament, as legislative repeal would take effect within a single term.