Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Written evidence submitted by a working mother from Cambridge (REULB20)

Response to call for written evidence: Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Executive Summary:

· With regard to workers’ and employment rights, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill represents a retrograde step for working families and particularly working women.

· If workers’ rights affected by this Bill are not retained/reinstated in their current form, working conditions will rapidly deteriorate for the average worker/employee in the UK, affecting pay, equal pay, time with family, the safety of working practices and access to employment for women.

· The Government talks about levelling up but this Bill represents a levelling down of the citizens of this country.

· It puts the interests of corporations ahead of the health, wealth and happiness of the average worker and shows a reckless disregard for ordinary working people.

· Rather than attracting the best talent it will single the UK out as one of the worst countries to work (and therefore live) in Europe.

· The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill needs to be withdrawn in its entirety, or at the very least the concept of sunset clauses which are an affront to democratic processes.

Submission:

1. I will be brief. I aim to summarise the very real impact that the disappearance of key workers’ rights by the end of 2023 will have on working people and in particular its disproportionate impact on working women.

2. Firstly, it seems that there are three options for legislation affected by this Bill: restatement, replacement or revocation. The Bill specifically provides that any replacement should not increase the regulatory burden and so it seems we are on a downward trajectory, that is if the legislation is replaced at all. The more likely option is that it would disappear, otherwise why would the Government bother with the Bill if only to restate legislation as it is?

3. Having accepted that it is likely that many key rights will go, I will now concentrate on the real life impact of that, giving some examples:

a. 5.6 weeks of paid annual leave under the Working Time Regulations: who will look after primary school age children in the holidays when this is abolished? Or will families simply be poorer or driven out of work?

b. Rest breaks and limits on working time: there will be a return to the bad old days of long hours, unsafe working practices, more accidents. Essentially it paves the way for abuse by unscrupulous employers.

c. Part-timer worker (prevention of less favourable treatment) Regulations: if removed it is inevitable that there will be different rates of pay for part-timers many of whom are women. Part-timers will also be selected for redundancy on the basis of their part-time status without any regard for skills.

d. Equal pay for women: it goes without saying that being paid less for the same work on account of gender is unacceptable.

e. Family friendly rights: women and their families will be faced with a choice: have a baby or work but not both. This will drive down birth rates. I assume the Government is aware of our aging population?

4. And it is no use saying this will appeal to the worst employers only. Without the fear of enforcement of legislation, the average employer will adopt any practice they can get away with; it is just too much temptation not to.

5. Given the above, I can only conclude that the Bill has been deliberately or recklessly designed to degrade living and working conditions for ordinary people and force women out of employment. Coincidentally, I find it strange that the Government would pursue a policy that would increase vacancies, given its hard-line position on immigration and its professed pursuit of growth. According to the 2011 Census, women and girls make up 51% of the population of England and Wales.

6. For me the Bill represents a conscious stepping back from protections for ordinary people. An early sign was when the promised Employment Bill was cancelled. This was intended, amongst other things, to tackle insecure work and improve the position of workers in the gig economy. The foreword to the Good Work Plan (Dec 2018) talked about the Government’s commitment to "legislative changes to ensure that workers can access fair and decent work". There is little hope of that now.

7. The Public Bill Committee may chose not to give any weight to this submission and that is outside of my control. I have done my bit and the rest is down to the electorate who will surely punish the Conservative party at the next election if this Bill is allowed to pass.

8. I should point out however that when the average Brexit voter thought about red tape they did not envisage their basic employment rights being stripped back. This is the very definition of taking advantage of "the freedoms of Brexit" but do not think that it has gone unnoticed.

1 November 2022