Connect with us

Published

on

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”.

Click to subscribe to Politics at Jack and Sam’s wherever you get your podcasts

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.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Kemi Badenoch was told off in the House of Commons by the Speaker of the House

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”.

Read more:
Government to unveil plans centred around criminal justice
Hard to see how Rishi Sunak’s first King’s Speech won’t be his last

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.

Continue Reading

Politics

US bank regulator clears national banks to facilitate crypto transactions

Published

on

By

US bank regulator clears national banks to facilitate crypto transactions

The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has affirmed that national banks can intermediate cryptocurrency trades as riskless principals without holding the assets on their balance sheets, a move that brings traditional banks a step closer to offering regulated crypto brokerage services.

In an interpretive letter released on Tuesday, the regulator said banks may act as principals in a crypto trade with one customer while simultaneously entering an offsetting trade with another, a structure that mirrors riskless principal activity in traditional markets. 

“Several applicants have discussed how conducting riskless principal crypto-asset transactions would benefit their proposed bank’s customers and business, including by offering additional services in a growing market,” notes the document.

According to the OCC, the move would allow customers “to transact crypto-assets through a regulated bank, as compared to non-regulated or less regulated options.”

Banks, United States, Donald Trump
The OCC’s interpretive letter affirms that riskless principal crypto transactions fall within the “business of banking.” Source: US OCC

The letter also reiterates that banks must confirm the legal permissibility of any crypto activity and ensure it aligns with their chartered powers. Institutions are expected to maintain procedures for monitoring operational, compliance and market risks.

“The main risk in riskless principal transactions is counterparty credit risk (in particular, settlement risk),” reads the letter, adding that “managing counterparty credit risk is integral to the business of banking, and banks are experienced in managing this risk.”

The agency’s guidance cites 12 U.S.C. § 24, which permits national banks to conduct riskless principal transactions as part of the “business of banking.” The letter also draws a distinction between crypto assets that qualify as securities, noting that riskless principal transactions involving securities were already clearly permissible under existing law.

The OCC’s interpretive letter — a nonbinding guidance that outlines the agency’s view of which activities national banks may conduct under existing law — was issued a day after the head of the OCC, Jonathan Gould, said crypto firms seeking a federal bank charter should be treated the same as traditional financial institutions.

According to Gould, the banking system has the “capacity to evolve,” and there is “no justification for considering digital assets differently” than traditional banks, which have offered custody services “electronically for decades.”

Related: Trump’s national security strategy is silent on crypto, blockchain

From ‘Choke Point 2.0’ to pro-crypto policy

Under the Biden administration, some industry groups and lawmakers accused US regulators of pursuing an “Operation Choke Point 2.0” approach that increased supervisory pressure on banks and firms interacting with crypto.

Since President Trump took office in January after pledging to support the sector, the federal government has moved in the opposite direction, adopting a more permissive posture toward digital asset activity.

Magazine: Quantum attacking Bitcoin would be a waste of time: Kevin O’Leary