Equality Act must outlaw caste discrimination
The Equality Act should be amended to take caste discrimination into account, and a change to law floated 12 years ago finally implemented, a Wolverhampton MP has said.The caste system, developed in India, divides people into separate groups based on birth, marriage and occupation.Warinder Juss, Labour MP for Wolverhampton West, said amendments suggested in 2013 would have meant discrimination based on a person's caste was regarded in law the same as racial discrimination. However the changes were never enacted.Mr Juss has called for a debate in Parliament on introducing the measure.
In 2013, the then coalition Business Secretary Vince Cable stated caste discrimination was to be outlawed in the UK.Campaigners had argued legislation was needed because thousands of people suffered abuse and prejudice because they were considered low caste.In the same year, after pressure in Parliament, the government initially offered legal protection to 400,000 Dalits - so-called "untouchables" - who lived in the UK and faced discrimination in Hindu and Sikh communities. Five years later, in response to consultation, the then government decided against further legislation, instead relying on developments in case law - and faced criticism for the delays. Juss said in the Commons on Thursday: "Does the leader of the House agree that caste discrimination is as bad as discrimination based on colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, and will she therefore please agree to a debate in this house for the implementation of section 9(5) of the Equality Act so that caste discrimination can be specified to be a form of race discrimination."Speaking in the Commons during Business Questions on Thursday, Commons leader Lucy Powell said: "I absolutely appreciate that caste discrimination can be incredibly damaging and pernicious."We take our obligations under the Equality Act very seriously indeed and I will ensure that [Juss] gets an update on where that's up to."
Follow BBC Wolverhampton & Black Country on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Labour MPs in call for benefits U-turn after change to winter fuel payment cut
Ms Reeves' £1.25 billion plan unveiled on Monday will see automatic payments worth up to £300 given to pensioners with an income less than £35,000 a year. It followed last year's decision to strip pensioners of the previously universal scheme, unless they claimed certain benefits, such as pension credit. Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, warned ministers they risked making a 'similar mistake' if they tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments, known as Pip. Leeds East MP Richard Burgon called on pensions minister Torsten Bell to 'listen now' so that backbenchers can help the Government 'get it right'. In her warning, Ms Whittome said she was not asking Mr Bell 'to keep the status quo or not to support people into work' and added: 'I'm simply asking him not to cut disabled people's benefits.' The pensions minister, who works in both the Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions, replied that the numbers of people receiving Pip is set to 'continue to grow every single year in the years ahead, after the changes set out by this Government'. In its Pathways to Work green paper, the Government proposed a new eligibility requirement, so Pip claimants must score a minimum of four points on one daily living activity, such as preparing food, washing and bathing, using the toilet or reading, to receive the daily living element of the benefit. 'This means that people who only score the lowest points on each of the Pip daily living activities will lose their entitlement in future,' the document noted. Mr Burgon told the Commons: 'As a Labour MP who voted against the winter fuel payment cuts, I very much welcome this change in position, but can I urge the minister and the Government to learn the lessons of this and one of the lessons is, listen to backbenchers? 'If the minister and the Government listen to backbenchers, that can help the Government get it right, help the Government avoid getting it wrong, and so what we don't want is to be here in a year or two's time with a minister sent to the despatch box after not listening to backbenchers on disability benefit cuts, making another U-turn again.' Mr Bell replied that it was 'important to listen to backbenchers, to frontbenchers'. Opposition MPs cheered when the minister added: 'It's even important to listen to members opposite on occasion.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin warned that 'judging by the questions from his own backbenchers, it seems that we're going to have further U-turns on Pip and on the two-child benefit cap'. The Tunbridge Wells MP asked Mr Bell: 'To save his colleagues anguish, will he let us know now when those U-turns are coming?' The minister replied: 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Labour Government bringing down child poverty, and that's what we're going to do 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Government that can take the responsible decisions, including difficult ones on tax and on means testing the winter fuel payment so that we can invest in public services and turn around the disgrace that has become Britain's public realm for far too long.' Conservative former work and pensions secretary Esther McVey had earlier asked whether the Chancellor, 'now that she and the Government have got a taste for climbdowns', would 'reverse the equally ridiculous national insurance contribution (Nic) rises, which is destroying jobs, and the inheritance tax changes, which is destroying farms and family businesses'. Mr Bell said: 'This is a party opposite that has learned no lessons whatsoever, that thinks it can come to this chamber, call for more spending, oppose every tax rise and expect to ever be taken seriously again – they will not.' Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey pressed the Government to make changes to the two-child benefit cap, which means most parents cannot claim for more than two children. 'It's the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty, and I'm sure that both he and the Chancellor also agree that it's right to lift children out of poverty,' the Salford MP told the Commons. 'So can he reassure this House that he and the Chancellor are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible?' Mr Bell replied: 'All levers to reduce child poverty are on the table. 'The child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn.' He added: 'If we look at who is struggling most, having to turn off their heating, it is actually younger families with children that are struggling with that. 'So she's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this Government, we cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty.'
North Wales Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
School loses Supreme Court bid over Christian staff member sacked for LGBT posts
Kristie Higgs, a Christian mother of two, was sacked from her role at Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, in 2019 for sharing Facebook posts criticising teaching about LGBT+ relationships in schools. In February, she won a Court of Appeal battle related to her dismissal, with three senior judges finding that the decision to sack her for gross misconduct was 'unlawfully discriminatory' and 'unquestionably a disproportionate response'. The school sought to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court in March, but three justices refused to give the school the green light to challenge the decision in the UK's highest court. In a decision on Thursday, which was published on Monday, Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen, and Lady Simler said that the school had asked for the go-ahead to appeal against the ruling on four grounds. But they said that the Supreme Court 'does not have jurisdiction' to hear three of the grounds, and the fourth 'does not raise an arguable question of law'. In response to the decision, Mrs Higgs said: 'I am relieved and grateful to the Supreme Court for this common-sense decision. 'Christians have the right to express their beliefs on social media and at other non-work-related settings without fear of being punished by their employer.' Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre – which supported Mrs Higgs' case, said: 'We welcome the Supreme Court's decision, which brings a decisive closure to this extraordinary case.' She continued: 'The Court of Appeal confirmed, loud and clear, that ideological censorship in the workplace, particularly against sincerely held Christian convictions, is illegal. 'This latest decision from the Supreme Court is further proof that our tireless work at the Christian Legal Centre, in defending so many Christian freedoms cases, has not been in vain.' Mrs Higgs, who worked as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager at the school, shared two posts on a private page under her maiden name in October 2018 to about 100 friends, which raised concerns about relationship education at her son's Church of England primary school. She either copied and pasted from another source or reposted the content, adding her own reference in one post to 'brainwashing our children'. BREAKING: The Supreme Court has today refused to hear the appeal of Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire of the landmark Kristie Higgs Court of Appeal ruling. In February 2025, in a seminal judgment for Christian freedom and free speech, the Court of Appeal had reversed… — Christian Concern (@CConcern) June 9, 2025 Pupils were to learn about the No Outsiders In Our School programme, a series of books that teach the Equality Act in primary schools. An employment tribunal found in 2020 that while Mrs Higgs' religion was a protected characteristic, her dismissal was lawful, but this decision was overturned by an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in 2023. But the EAT ruled the case should be sent back to an employment tribunal for a fresh decision, which Mrs Higgs' lawyers challenged in the Court of Appeal as 'unnecessary'. In a judgment, Lord Justice Underhill, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk, ruled in Mrs Higgs' favour in February, stating: 'The dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer, or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation, objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act.'
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Yvette Cooper ‘on resignation watch' after spending row with Reeves
Yvette Cooper's rows with the Treasury over spending have been so heated that officials fear she will resign. The Home Secretary is understood to have warned Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, that Labour election promises were at risk from a lack of investment in policing. In one meeting last week, Ms Reeves is said to have abruptly brought talks with Ms Cooper to a close. There are also claims a senior Home Office official stopped taking calls from the Treasury. Sir Keir Starmer has had to directly intervene to end the stand-off over the spending review. Downing Street on Monday said Ms Cooper had agreed to accept the Treasury offer, which includes a real-terms increase in policing budgets. Multiple well-placed government insiders told The Telegraph that the negotiations between Ms Cooper and the Treasury became so fraught that there was discussion about whether she would quit. An ally of Ms Cooper on Monday evening denied that she might resign, noting she had been talking to aides about her diary engagements for the rest of the month earlier in the day. But the fact that some figures in Downing Street and the Treasury have considered her departure a distinct possibility underscores how tense the talks became. Labour promised in its 2024 general election manifesto to halve violence against women and girls, reduce knife crime and establish 13,000 more community police officers. As Home Secretary, Ms Cooper is responsible for delivering those promises but it is the Treasury that decides how much money can go into policing. Treasury insiders are framing the police as a winner in Wednesday's spending review, which sets departmental spending for the next three years, as the policing budget will rise in real terms. But the degree to which police chiefs have launched into a public lobbying campaign against the Treasury – one still running over the weekend – suggests they fear it will not be enough. The Tories believe that, even with real-term police spending rises, it is likely that total officer headcount in England and Wales will fall from its peak of 149,000 in 2024 in the years ahead. Ms Cooper was the last cabinet minister left standing when Angela Rayner, the Communities Secretary, who has also battled with the Treasury, settled her budget on Sunday evening. The Home Secretary finally agreed a deal with less than 48 hours to go until Ms Reeves announces her spending plans. One ally of Ms Cooper said of her tough negotiating approach: 'Yvette's been chief secretary of the Treasury. She knows all the best ideas in the book.' A senior Whitehall figure acknowledged that the talks between Ms Cooper and No 11 had been fraught and prompted discussion among aides and officials that she could resign. However any decision to go would likely mean the end of Ms Cooper's front-line political career, since she would not be expected to be welcomed back into the cabinet under Sir Keir. The details of the policing budget, when they are published on Wednesday, will be closely scrutinised for their impact on officer numbers and the delivery of flagship pledges. In a series of interventions in the last few weeks, police chiefs and associations representing officers have been publicly challenging Ms Reeves to go further on police pay. In an article for The Telegraph on Monday, the heads of the Police Superintendents' Association and Police Federation of England and Wales warned that police forces were 'broken' and had been forced to shed officers because of cuts. As an unprotected department, the Home Office has been in Treasury cross-hairs as spending is squeezed from an annual real-term increase of 2.5 per cent to 1.2 per cent. Above-inflation rises for the NHS, extra money for schools and a marked increase in defence spending means other Whitehall budgets have been facing real-term cuts. On Monday, Ms Reeves announced that nine million pensioners will now get the winter fuel payments – a major reversal in policy after all but the poorest lost them last summer. Now pensioners in England and Wales with an income of £35,000 or less will get the annual payment of between £200 and £300 per household. Around two million pensioners whose incomes are above that threshold will get the money but then have it clawed back through the tax system, meaning they will lose out.
