Sunak is ‘squandering Brexit freedoms’ by approving more EU rules
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Rishi Sunak has been accused of squandering Brexit freedoms after quietly introducing sweeping EU equality rules into British law.
New regulations, driven through Parliament without fanfare, “gold-plate” judgments by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and create a “carte blanche” for companies to be sued for “unlimited damages”, Conservative MPs have warned.
The changes amount to a significant expansion of New Labour’s Equality Act, which Mr Sunak once claimed had “allowed every kind of woke nonsense to permeate public life” and “must stop”.
Ministers say the changes brought “necessary protections” from EU case law into domestic law, before ECJ judgments ceased to apply in Britain this year following Britain’s exit from the EU.
But Tory MPs have criticised the Government for adopting the measure and say it goes further than some ECJ rulings.
Lawyers believe the laws could, for example, allow workers who care for disabled family members to sue firms for “indirect discrimination” on grounds of disability if they are barred from working from home.
Headache for Prime Minister
The row creates a further headache for the Prime Minister in the wake of a double by-election defeat.
Separately, a poll circulating among MPs reveals that eight in 10 former Tory voters think the party would have a better chance of winning the next election if it had a leader who embraced “traditional Conservative values”.
Lord Moylan, the Conservative peer, advocates a change of leadership as a “possible path” to victory in the election, but a senior MP loyal to Mr Sunak said: “If we don’t all hang together we’ll all hang separately.”
The new laws took effect last month, four years after Brexit, without any debate in the Commons or Lords chambers. No announcement was made to the media.
The changes provoked a furious response from leading Brexiteers including Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Sir Bill Cash, Sir John Hayes and Martin Howe KC, who has advised the European Research Group. Sir Jacob, Sir Bill and Sir John all refused to vote in favour of the regulations.
Sir Jacob said: “Not only people who voted for Brexit, but people who didn’t, would think that implementing ECJ judgments in any form is simply weird. We have left the EU.”
He added: “I cannot understand why the Government wishes to put more burdens on businesses and add to the Equality Act’s damage to our economic vibrancy.”
One of the additions to the Equality Act allows people to sue for “indirect discrimination” if they find themselves subject to the “same disadvantage” as, for example, gay people or members of particular religions, even if the claimants themselves are not gay or religious.
A second addition means a company can be sued by third parties if executives make “discriminatory” comments about the type of workers they would or would not hire, even if the firm is not recruiting at the time.
One firm of employment lawyers said: “This is unusual as there may not be an identifiable victim or loss.”
‘Dangerous’ Army initiative
Tory MPs blame the Equality Act for driving “dangerous” initiatives, including in the Army, which The Telegraph revealed wanted to relax security checks for overseas recruits to boost diversity.
Sir John said: “It’s not good enough for a Conservative government to let the ratchet move further on. The vote for Brexit was in some sense a cry for help from the law-abiding, patriotic, hard-working majority. They are desperate for more conservatism, not less.”
Sir Bill added: “This was done, in my opinion, by virtue of extremely bad advice. Nobody seems to have quite grasped how important these issues are.”
Other measures included protecting women from less favourable treatment at work because they are breastfeeding, and protections against unfavourable treatment of women returning from maternity leave - which were not disputed by MPs.
Under the Retained EU Law Act 2023 Britain was no longer bound by ECJ case law from the end of 2023.
Maria Caulfield, the minister for women, told MPs that the Government’s new regulations ensured that “necessary protections” from ECJ judgments “are put into our statute.”
Strong equality law protections
“This will end the inherent uncertainty of relying on judicial interpretation of EU law and instead ensure that strong and clear equality law protections are set out in our domestic legislation,” she said.
But Mr Howe questioned why ministers were “behaving as if we are under an obligation to follow these judgments as part of our law when we are under absolutely no obligation to do so”.
The Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023 were approved by MPs on Dec 13, the day after the rebellion over Mr Sunak’s Rwanda legislation. Ten Conservative MPs voted against the Government.
Addressing MPs before voting against the legislation, Miriam Cates, a prominent Conservative MP, said it would “undermine our understanding of discrimination rather than to strengthen it ... by gold-plating an obscure piece of foreign case law that essentially allows someone without a protected characteristic to piggyback off someone who does”.
It could create “almost a carte blanche for individuals to bring indirect discrimination cases on almost any grounds and with unlimited potential damages”, she added.
A Government spokesman insisted the legislation was “essential” to “ensure that existing key rights and principles such as equal pay and protections for breastfeeding women were enshrined in law.”
“We are not re-stating EU law where it is not needed. This legislation applies only to directly discriminatory statements relating to recruitment decisions. Individuals will continue to be free to express their personal beliefs as they are at present.
“However, we have noted a number of concerns from MPs and are giving these careful consideration. We have not ruled out the possibility of making further amendments to legislation.”
This weekend Ms Cates said she had been “reassured” by “constructive engagement from ministers”.
