Member

It is not enough to assume that a single body will automatically deliver better outcomes than the existing regime. Enforcement is failing not because of institutional multiplicity alone. Each of the current bodies—the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and HMRC’s minimum wage enforcement teams—serves a specific, differentiated role in a highly complex labour market. In some parts of the labour market—agriculture, construction, care work and logistics—a one-size-fits-all approach may not work. Moreover, there is the real risk that such a body could be driven by process rather than impact. We must not fall into the trap of building a body that spends more time chasing administrative infractions in compliant small businesses than confronting the deliberate, concealed exploitation of migrant workers, agency temps and casualised labourers. Overenforcement in the wrong places and underenforcement in the right ones would be a costly failure. This is a live risk, which is why a full independent review assessing enforcement effectiveness, the performance of existing bodies and the regulatory ecosystem they operate in is, in my view, indispensable. This matters particularly for smaller businesses that, unlike multinationals, lack the legal resources and dedicated compliance teams to navigate sudden changes in enforcement structures or protocols. Poorly targeted legislation, however well-intentioned, can fall hardest on these firms. We cannot afford to set up a system that should penalise the contentious but ends up penalising the conscientious while leaving the genuinely exploitative untouched.