My trepidation, expressed last month, about venturing into the prediction business was well-founded. I suggested that, for the Government, the will and the time to give a meaningful response to the Taylor Review was some way off. That was published at the beginning of February. On 7 February, the Government published its response to the review. I do not, of course, seek to draw any connection between the two events.

As set out in an article by Caspar Glyn QC and Chesca Lord in this issue, one might raise a question over how ‘meaningful’ the Government’s response has been. Another consultation is proposed, which has the ring of cans on roads or the whiff of uncut grass in the summer. One wonders whether unemployment has been kept artificially low for the past few years by the sheer number of reviews that have been undertaken on worker status and rights, sucking people into (not very) gainful employment as the rights of millions are picked over with a view to working out what is right.

At the heart of the issue is the question of what is meant by right, as in the right thing to do. Should the Government impose minimum standards and rights on two contracting parties, recognising that there is an inequality of bargaining power between them, such that one party – the worker – needs to be protected from exploitation by the other?

Alternatively, should the Government merely seek to ensure that there is greater transparency in the relationship, so that both parties enter into it with their eyes wide open, recognising what they are agreeing to, but stepping back from deciding what that agreement should be particularly as it may be something that suits both for their own, perhaps unconnected, reasons?

Choices do – and should – have consequences, both positive and negative. That allows us to discern, discriminate (in the non-legal sense!) and make decisions. One consequence of the flexibility of employment regulation may be positive, in terms of a greater number or proportion of people being able to work and earn a living than may otherwise be the case. The UK has a highly flexible labour market and historically low unemployment. The former does not determine the latter, but is probably an influence.

Another consequence is that people may end up working for less than the minimum wage, with no paid annual leave and no sick pay in the event that they fall ill. Is the balance between what appears to be competing interests right? Where does it lie?

The other pool I dipped my toe into was Brexit and the extent to which the UK may ‘consciously uncouple’ from EU employment regulation. On 10 February (again, probably no connection to the timing of the ELA Briefing), the Independent reported that a Whitehall impact assessment ‘singles out workers’ protections as an area that might be used for “maximising regulatory opportunities” after withdrawal’. MPs who read the document said it referred to a Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy review of the potential impact of amending or removing existing employment regulations.

The point is that there are choices to be made and that needs to be recognised. It can only be done, however, by there being some transparency and honesty that those choices and consequences are both positive and negative. While the Brexit discussion does not meet those criteria, the worker status and rights discussion can, and I would urge you to take part in the consultation that is proposed.

Alex Lock, DAC Beachcroft LLP