Member

This is not regulatory reform: it is a retreat from scrutiny, and it is designed not to protect the public or uphold standards, but to shield powerful figures from accountability. No serious Government can argue in one breath that workers need the state to protect them from employers, and then in the next breath claim that union leaders should be left to police themselves. That is not consistency: it is partisanship. It is the selective application of principle, and it is ordinary union members and staff who will pay the price. I do not believe it is fairness: it is regulatory abdication. It would be laughable, if it were not so dangerous, to claim on the one hand that workers need state intervention because employers might intimidate them, and then to claim on the other hand that union leadership can regulate itself without any real oversight.