EU equality laws to be reinstated to avoid ‘gap in protections’ for workers

Published

2 years ago

November 7, 2023

admin

The government has announced plans to reinstate EU equality laws before they expire at the end of the year – admitting the move is required to avoid a “clear gap in protections” for workers.

Ministers will today lay a statutory instrument intended to “enshrine” key rights and principles derived from the European Union into British law.

Politics Live: Braverman is ‘dangerous’ and ‘divisive’, ex-Tory minister tells Sophy Ridge

It follows questions over whether some employment protections related to things like equal pay and maternity leave would be scrapped from January when The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill comes into effect.

The controversial legislation – also known as the “Brexit Freedoms Bill” – will dispense with hundreds of Brussels-derived laws still on British statue books. It will also end the supremacy of EU law over UK law, erasing previous case law principles.

Trade unions and employment lawyers had warned this would create uncertainty over key protections for British workers which derive from the EU and don’t exist in British law.

The government said its update today means “that necessary protections are clearly stated in our domestic legislation”.

One legal expert welcomed the announcement – but said it raised “legitimate questions” around what gains had been made from post-Brexit sovereignty if EU laws are simply going to be replicated.

The protections being retained include the “single-source” test, which gives women the right to equal pay with men for doing work of equal value, and preventing women from experiencing less favourable treatment at work because they are breastfeeding.

Other laws being retained include:

• Protecting women from unfavourable treatment after they return from maternity leave, where that treatment is in connection with a pregnancy or a pregnancy-related illness occurring before their return;

• Ensuring that women can continue to receive special treatment from their employer in connection with maternity, for example through enhanced occupational maternity schemes;

• Confirming that the definition of disability in the context of employment will explicitly cover working life;

• Holding employers accountable if they create or allow discriminatory recruitment conditions, such as if they make public discriminatory statements about access to employment in their organisation;

• Providing explicit protections from indirect discrimination by association, so that those who may be caught up and disadvantaged by discrimination against others are also protected.

The move could risk angering Eurosceptic Tories, who want to see the UK move away from the EU’s influence.

Max Winthrop, the chair of the Law Society’s Employment Law Committee, welcomed the clarification that vital rights “would not be for the legislative dustbin as of December 31st”.

However, he said the move does raise “legitimate questions” about the point of Brexit, from a sovereignty standpoint.

“When we are effectively replicating legislation from the EU, and I can understand why the government have done that because it would not be particularly popular to say ‘let’s scrap maternity rights’, it does leave the big question as to what exactly is it that we’ve gained from leaving the EU,” he told Sky News.

“We haven’t gained what was sometimes referred to as the Singapore-on-the-Thames approach. In other words, to deregulate the marketplace. So you then have to ask yourself the question, is the loss of seamless trade throughout the European Economic Area really worth the cattle?”.

He added that the announcement shows why the original plan to scrap all remaining EU laws by the end of this year “would have probably been disastrous”.

“It shows the complexity of junking 40 years worth of (EU) legislation, and the sorts of steps we’ve had to go through to maintain the protections that a lot of people probably thought they already had.”

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill was originally intended to scrap all EU-era laws which were kept in place after the Brexit transition period in order to minimise disruption to businesses.

But the promised bonfire of Brussels rules and regulations was dramatically scaled-back in May, with less than 600 now set to be junked by the end of this year.

Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch said the change was necessary because of the “risks of legal uncertainty” caused by automatically scrapping some 4,000 laws, but there was significant backlash from within the Conservative Party, with arch-Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg accusing the prime minister of “behaving like a Borgia”.

Notes accidently left on the press release announcing today’s measures suggest some concern that retaining the protections could rile up the right wing of the party.

The notes discussed how to answer questions about why the government isn’t scrapping the protections, and whether maintaining discrimination laws would threaten free speech and “make businesses feel they must follow the woke agenda”.

The document stresses that if the EU laws aren’t retained, “employers would in some circumstances be able to make statements, for example, that they wouldn’t hire people because they are black. That is not right and not in line with Britain’s proud history of equality and fair play”.

“We are only restating laws where there would otherwise be a clear gap in protections: this is an area where we think the law needs to be strong and clear,” the document says.

A government spokesperson said: “We are committed to ensuring that the fundamental rights and freedoms of people in the United Kingdom remain protected.

“Our work is ensuring that necessary protections are retained and will end the inherent uncertainty of relying on judicial interpretations of EU law.

“Today’s update will ensure that Great Britain maintains its proud history of equality and that necessary protections are clearly stated in our domestic legislation.”

King’s Speech live: Watch our special programme on Sky News, hosted by Sophy Ridge, from 10.30am on Tuesday. You will also be able to follow the event live via the Politics Hub on the Sky News app and website.

UK

Lingering dread over what else about Prince Andrew could still emerge

Published

7 hours ago

October 20, 2025

admin

Lingering dread over what else about Prince Andrew could still emerge

Just a cursory glance at the headlines, and it’s clear the disgrace and downfall of Prince Andrew is not over.

So what next for the man and the monarchy?

The King might have hoped his involvement showed direct action had been taken.

He certainly does not want any distraction from his upcoming state visit to the Vatican.

But that might be wishful thinking.

Now the Met Police has been dragged in too. Forced to look into reports in the Mail on Sunday that Andrew asked his protection officer to smear his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.

The prince allegedly wanted his officer “to dig up dirt” and told an aide at the palace what he had done.

Let’s be clear: back then, Andrew’s security was funded by the taxpayer.

So are we reaching the endgame, and what does that look like?

Andrew might have given up the use of his title, Duke of York, and other honours too.

But what about his style ‘prince’? Some want that ditched too.

It’s a complicated but not impossible process. Andrew could, of course, just stop using it voluntarily.

Some want him to give up his home, too. For a non-working royal, the stately Royal Lodge, with its plum position on the Windsor Estate, is an uncomfortable optic.

Andrew’s wider family is worried. The Sunday Times has reported that the Prince of Wales wants him cut off completely.

With the reputation of the monarchy at risk, William does not want to appear weak. He’s putting loyalty to “the firm” firmly above his familial relationships.

Prince Andrew has always strongly denied the allegations, and restated on Friday: “I vigorously deny the accusations against me”. Sky News has approached him for comment on the fresh allegations set out in the Mail on Sunday.

But with Virginia Giuffre’s tragic death and posthumous memoir due out on Tuesday, Buckingham Palace will be braced for more scandal.

When Andrew gave up his titles, there was certainly a sense of relief.

There is now a sense of dread over what else could emerge.

UK

Why Andrew hasn’t given up being a prince – amid call for him to ‘live in exile’

Published

7 hours ago

October 20, 2025

admin

Why Andrew hasn't given up being a prince - amid call for him to 'live in exile'

Sky News’ royal commentator has explained why Prince Andrew has not given up being called a prince – while another expert has said “the decent thing” for him to do would be “go into exile” overseas.

Andrew announced on Friday that he would stop using his Duke of York title and relinquish all other honours, including his role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.

However, he will continue to be known as a prince.

Royal commentator Alastair Bruce said that while Andrew’s other honours and titles were conferred to him later in life, he became a prince when he was born to Elizabeth II while she was queen.

He told presenter Kamali Melbourne: “I think […] that style was quite special to the late Queen,” he said. “And perhaps the King, for the moment, thinks that can be left alone.

“It’s a matter really for the King, for the royal household, perhaps with the guidance and advice of government, which I’m sure they are taking.”

Since Andrew’s announcement, there has been speculation over whether any further measures will be taken – and one author has now called for him to “go into exile”.

Andrew Lownie, author of The Rise And Fall Of The House Of York, said: “The only way the story will go away is if he leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew.”

Royal Lodge is the Windsor mansion Andrew lives in with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who has also lost her Duchess of York title.

Mr Lownie continued: “He makes out he’s an honourable man and he’s putting country and family first. Well, if he is, then the optics look terrible for the monarchy. A non-working royal in a 30-room Crown Estate property with a peppercorn rent.

“He should do the decent thing and go. And frankly, he should go into exile.”

Mr Lownie added if the Royal Family “genuinely want to cut links, they have to put pressure on him to voluntarily get out”.

Andrew’s decision to stop using his titles was announced amid renewed scrutiny of his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and fresh stories linked to the late Virginia Giuffre.

Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein, alleged she was sexually assaulted by Andrew on three occasions – which he has always vigorously denied.

The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.

UK

Families whose loved ones took their lives after buying poison online write to PM

Published

7 hours ago

October 20, 2025

admin

Families whose loved ones took their lives after buying poison online write to PM

Bereaved families whose loved ones took their own lives after buying the same poison online have written to the prime minister demanding urgent action.

Warning: This article contains references to suicide

The group claims there have been “multiple missed opportunities” to shut down online forums that promote suicide and dangerous substances.

They warn that over 100 people have died after purchasing a particular poison in the last 10 years.

Among those who have written to Downing Street is Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah was 22 when she took her own life after buying the poison from a website.

Hannah was autistic and had ADHD. She was treated in six different mental health hospitals over a four-year period.

Mr Aitken recently spoke to Sky News around the second anniversary of Hannah’s death.

He said: “Autistic people seem to be most vulnerable to this kind of sort of poison and, you know, wanting to take their lives.”

Sky News is not naming the poison, but Hannah was able to buy a kilogram of it online. Just one gram is potentially fatal.

“There’s this disparity between the concentration required for its legitimate use and that required for ending your life. And it seems quite clear you could make a distinction,” Mr Aitken said.

Analysis from the Molly Rose Foundation and the group Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms says at least 133 people have died because of the poison. It also says coroners have written warnings about the substance on 65 separate occasions.

The report accuses the Home Office of failing to strengthen the regulation of the poison and says not enough is being done to close dangerous suicide forums online.

Lawyers representing the group want a public inquiry into the deaths.

In a joint letter to the prime minister, the families said: “We write as families whose loved ones were let down by a state that was too slow to respond to the threat.

“This series of failings requires a statutory response, not just to understand why our loved ones died but also to prevent more lives being lost in a similar way.”

The group’s lawyer, Merry Varney, from Leigh Day, said: “The government is rightly committed to preventing deaths through suicide, yet despite repeated warnings of the risks posed by an easily accessible substance, fatal in small quantities and essentially advertised on online forums, no meaningful steps have been taken.”

A government spokesperson said: “Suicide devastates families and we are unequivocal about the responsibilities online services have to keep people safe on their platforms.

“Under the Online Safety Act, services must take action to prevent users from accessing illegal suicide and self-harm content and ensure children are protected from harmful content that promotes it.

“If they fail to do so, they can expect to face robust enforcement, including substantial fines.”

They added that the position is “closely monitored and reportable under the Poisons Act, meaning retailers must alert authorities if they suspect it is being bought to cause harm”.

“We will continue to keep dangerous substances under review to ensure the right safeguards are in place,” they said.

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.