Worker Protection Enforcement Authority
Liberal Democrat · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Liberal Democrat’s policy “Worker Protection Enforcement Authority” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Inequality & fair shares — Helps
minor · moderate confidence
By enforcing minimum wage, holiday pay, and sick pay for the lowest-paid workers, this authority would recover income that currently flows illegally from the bottom of the wage distribution upward to non-compliant employers, narrowing the earnings gap. The actual size of the effect depends on whether the body gets adequate funding and enforcement powers.
The evidence
- The policy creates a new authority unifying enforcement of minimum wage, modern slavery, and agency worker protections across three existing agencies. — libdems.org.uk (manifesto) — “Establish a powerful new Worker Protection Enforcement Authority unifying responsibilities currently spread across three agencies – including enforcing the minimum wage, tackling modern slavery and protecting agency work…”
- Almost one-third of workers paid at or around the wage floor were underpaid the minimum wage. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “almost one-third (32%) of workers paid at or around the wage floor were underpaid the minimum wage.”
- Minimum wage underpayment alone denies the lowest-paid workers £255 million per year. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “Minimum wage underpayment alone denies the lowest-paid workers a combined £255 million per year.”
- Holiday pay non-compliance costs workers over £2 billion per year. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “The loss of holiday pay is estimated to cost workers over £2 billion per year.”
- Approximately 900,000 workers reported receiving no paid holiday despite it being a legal entitlement. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “Approximately 900,000 workers reported receiving no paid holiday, despite it being a day-one entitlement.”
- Consolidating fragmented enforcement is expected to enable more coordinated and effective tackling of labour market abuses. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “the new authority is expected to enable a more coordinated and effective approach to tackling labour market abuses.”
- This could lead to significant reduction in minimum wage underpayment, denial of holiday pay, and lack of payslips. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “This could lead to a significant reduction in practices such as minimum wage underpayment, denial of holiday pay, and lack of payslips.”
Biggest unknown: Whether the new authority will receive sufficient funding and robust enough powers to achieve compliance at scale — the Resolution Foundation explicitly flags that 'adequate powers and funding' are essential for success.
Our reading: The non-compliance figures establish a clear baseline: the lowest-paid workers — those at or near the wage floor — are being systematically denied legally owed wages and rights worth hundreds of millions to billions of pounds annually. This is a regressive transfer: non-compliant employers effectively extract income from the bottom of the earnings distribution. A credible enforcement authority that reduces this non-compliance would reverse part of that transfer, narrowing the income gap between the lowest-paid workers and those higher up. The mechanism is straightforward: recovering underpaid minimum wages and holiday pay raises the actual (not just statutory) floor, directly compressing the bottom of the distribution. The magnitude is rated 'minor' rather than 'moderate' because: (i) the £255m minimum wage figure, while significant to those affected, is modest relative to total wage income; (ii) the projected compliance gains are uncertain — the Resolution Foundation explicitly conditions success on adequate funding and powers, which are not yet secured; and (iii) structural drivers of inequality (capital income, top-end pay) are unaffected. The time horizon is 'this-parliament' because enforcement bodies take time to become operational and build enforcement capacity, but material compliance gains are plausible within a parliamentary term. Absent the policy, fragmented enforcement has demonstrably failed a third of minimum-wage workers; the consolidation has a genuine additionality argument rooted in the cited evidence of enforcement gaps.
Good work & fair pay — Helps
moderate · moderate confidence
Creating a single enforcement body should help millions of workers who are currently denied legal rights like minimum wage, holiday pay and payslips — but how much difference it makes depends on whether the new agency gets enough funding and real enforcement powers.
The evidence
- The policy creates a new authority unifying enforcement responsibilities currently split across three agencies, covering minimum wage, modern slavery, and agency workers. — libdems.org.uk (manifesto) — “Establish a powerful new Worker Protection Enforcement Authority unifying responsibilities currently spread across three agencies – including enforcing the minimum wage, tackling modern slavery and protecting agency work…”
- Almost a third of workers paid at or near the wage floor were underpaid the minimum wage as of 2023. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “almost one-third (32%) of workers paid at or around the wage floor were underpaid the minimum wage.”
- Minimum wage underpayment costs the lowest-paid workers a combined £255 million per year. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “Minimum wage underpayment alone denies the lowest-paid workers a combined £255 million per year.”
- An estimated 2.2 million jobs in 2025 did not provide paid annual leave, costing workers over £2 billion per year. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “An estimated 2.2 million jobs in 2025 did not provide paid annual leave.”
- Approximately 1.8 million workers reported not receiving a payslip, a legal right. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “1.8 million workers reported not receiving a payslip, a legal right vital for checking pay accuracy.”
- Consolidating fragmented enforcement functions is expected to enable a more coordinated and effective approach to tackling labour market abuses. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “consolidating fragmented enforcement functions across bodies like HMRC's National Minimum Wage unit, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA), and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS), the new auth…”
- The authority could lead to a significant reduction in minimum wage underpayment, denial of holiday pay, and lack of payslips. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “This could lead to a significant reduction in practices such as minimum wage underpayment, denial of holiday pay, and lack of payslips.”
- A single contact point for workers is expected to increase reporting rates. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “a single, clear point of contact for workers to report concerns, which is expected to increase reporting rates.”
- Without protections for migrant workers from immigration consequences, fear of reporting could undermine the authority's effectiveness. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “Without such a firewall, migrant workers may remain fearful of reporting exploitation, undermining the authority's effectiveness.”
Biggest unknown: Whether the authority receives adequate funding and powers to enforce effectively, given that underfunding could leave widespread non-compliance largely unchanged.
Our reading: The baseline evidence shows large-scale, systemic non-compliance with basic employment law: roughly a third of minimum-wage workers are underpaid, 2.2 million jobs lack paid leave, and 1.8 million workers go without payslips. This is not a marginal problem — it costs the lowest-paid workers hundreds of millions of pounds per year. The current enforcement landscape is fragmented across three agencies, which analysts identify as a structural barrier to effective action. Consolidating these functions into a single authority addresses that structural problem directly: it simplifies reporting for workers, enables joined-up investigation, and brings previously uncovered rights (holiday and sick pay) into scope. The direction of effect on O4 — pay levels, security, and conditions for ordinary workers — is clearly positive in principle. The magnitude is moderated to 'moderate' rather than 'major' because effectiveness depends heavily on funding and powers. The Resolution Foundation explicitly flags that adequate resources are essential and not guaranteed, and the House of Commons Library notes additional expenditure will be required. A further risk is that migrant workers — often the most exploited — may still fear reporting if there is no firewall between the enforcement body and immigration enforcement. These are real delivery risks, but they are risks around magnitude, not direction. The evidence does not support a counter-argument that the policy worsens O4. 'Improves, moderate' is the honest verdict.
Crime, justice & national security — Helps
minor · low confidence
Consolidating labour enforcement agencies into one body — including powers to tackle modern slavery — could improve justice for victims of serious labour crimes. However, the effect on O5 specifically depends on how much enforcement capacity actually improves; funding and implementation are uncertain.
The evidence
- The policy explicitly includes tackling modern slavery as one of the unified enforcement responsibilities. — libdems.org.uk (manifesto) — “tackling modern slavery and protecting agency workers”
- Labour market enforcement is currently fragmented across multiple agencies, limiting coordinated action against exploitation. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “consolidating fragmented enforcement functions across bodies like HMRC's National Minimum Wage unit, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA), and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS)”
- Consolidation is expected to enable more coordinated and effective tackling of labour market abuses including exploitation. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “the new authority is expected to enable a more coordinated and effective approach to tackling labour market abuses”
- Migrant workers' fear of immigration repercussions currently deters reporting of abuse; a firewall could improve detection of non-compliance. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “vulnerable migrant workers feel safe reporting abuses without fear of immigration repercussions, thus improving the agency's ability to detect non-compliance”
- Without adequate protections for migrant workers, fear of reporting exploitation may undermine the authority's effectiveness. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “migrant workers may remain fearful of reporting exploitation, undermining the authority's effectiveness”
Biggest unknown: Whether the new body receives adequate funding and powers to materially increase detection and prosecution of modern slavery and labour exploitation, versus being a structural reorganisation with little practical gain.
Our reading: Modern slavery is both a serious crime and a justice concern squarely within O5. The policy directly names 'tackling modern slavery' as a remit of the new authority. Currently enforcement is fragmented across the GLAA, HMRC NMW unit, and EAS, limiting the coordinated response needed to detect and prosecute exploitation networks. Consolidation could improve investigative capacity and create a clearer route for victims to report crimes, which in principle supports better justice outcomes. The projected benefit to migrant worker reporting is real but conditional on an immigration firewall being established — without it, fear of reporting remains a barrier. The magnitude is kept minor rather than moderate because: (1) all positive effects are projected, not measured; (2) the evidence base is primarily from one institutional source (Resolution Foundation — institutional, not advocacy, but concentrated); (3) funding adequacy is flagged as genuinely uncertain; and (4) the O5 effect is specifically the crime/justice dimension (modern slavery, exploitation prosecutions) of what is primarily a labour-rights policy — the bulk of the policy's impact falls on O4. The direction is nonetheless 'improves' because the evidence, while uncertain in magnitude, consistently points toward better enforcement of serious crimes with no credible cited counter-evidence that consolidation worsens safety outcomes.