A Lancaster University think tank is calling on the government to "hold firm" on the core purpose of the Employment Rights Bill as it approaches Royal Assent in the coming weeks.

According to analysis by the Work Foundation, the Bill would have pushed 3.9 million more people into "secure" jobs had its reforms been in place in 2023. 

Their latest research estimates what the levels of job security would have been had two key reforms in the Employment Rights Bill - the introduction of day one rights and the introduction of minimum guaranteed hours - been in place and serves as an indication of the potential impact of these reforms will have in the future.

Analysis indicates that the introduction of day one employment rights with a probation period of six months and the right to guaranteed hours after twelve weeks on a zero-hour contract would have seen:

• The number of people in severely insecure work fall by 1.2 million from 6.8 million (21.4%) to 5.6 million (17.7%)
• The proportion of workers in moderately insecure work fall from 34.6% to 25.6%, which is equivalent to 2.9 million workers
• The proportion of the UK workforce in secure jobs rise sharply by 12.6 percentage points, from 44.1% (13.9 million workers) to 56.7% (17.8 million workers).
  

Overall, 3.85 million more workers would have accessed secure employment had these two policies been in place in 2023.

Estimated reduction in insecurity in 2023 had key reforms from the Employment Rights Bill been in place at the time (courtesy of the Work Foundation / Lancaster University)

Ben Harrison, director of the Work Foundation at Lancaster University, said: “Strengthening workers’ rights is a critical step towards delivering better living standards for working people across the UK. And while it is right that the Government engages extensively to ensure new measures are workable for workers and employers, ministers must not trade away the benefits of the Bill.

“Excessive delays in being able to access new rights risks significantly reducing the number of workers who will benefit from them at any given time. What might be characterised as ‘small details’ are in reality big choices for ministers, with significant implications for working people.”