Business Disability Forum criticised for pay-gap ambivalence'
A government and industry-funded group set up to support disabled workers is facing criticism for 'sitting on the fence' over disability pay-gap reporting at risk of undermining the reforms.
The Business Disability Forum (BDF), whose members employ close to one in five of the UK workforce, says it 'does not have a position either for or against' the plans, which aim to improve outcomes for disabled workers.
The government is proposing that employers with 250 or more staff report on pay by disability and ethnicity as they already do for gender. The policy is supported by groups including the Institute of Directors.
Lord Shinkwin, a disabled Conservative peer and a workplace inclusion advocate, claimed that the forum was 'in crisis' over the issue and risked
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Tory refuses 4 times to apologise for Liz Truss chaos in excruciating BBC clash
Chris Philp, who held a key Treasury role during Liz Truss' short spell in No10, was pressed by Laura Kuenssberg to say sorry as the Tories try and move on from the misery caused when in power A former Treasury ally of Liz Truss refused FOUR times to apologise for the chaos the Tories unleashed in an excruciating TV exchange. Chris Philp, who is now Shadow Home Secretary, was told that not saying sorry "drives people bananas" by the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg. The Conservative frontbencher, who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury during Ms Truss' short spell in charge, admitted that "mistakes were made" - but offered no apology despite being repeatedly pressed. It comes after his colleague, Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride, vowed "never again" to pledge unfunded tax cuts as the Tories try to move on. Asked for the first time if he would apologise, Mr Philp said: "Well I think Mel, openly and honestly acknowledged that mistakes were made in that time. Mistakes were made. And what Mel was saying is that those mistakes will never be made again by a Conservative administration." He went on to accuse Nigel Farage's Reform of "making extravagant promises about massive tax cuts and increases in welfare that are completely unfunded". But Ms Kuenssberg refused to drop the matter, saying: "You were the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time. There were £45billion of unfunded tax cuts. Mortgage rates went soaring, there had to be emergency intervention. "I'll ask you again - do you want to just say sorry for that? Maybe so you can move on?" Mr Philp stammered: "Well, I think huge mistakes were made..." But the BBC host cut in: "Isn't this precisely the thing that drives people bananas about politicians? You make a speech in London, your colleague makes a speech in London expressing contrition, which is a fancy way for saying we got it wrong, we're sorry. "Will you say sorry to people for the Liz Truss implosion?" Mr Philp continued: "Oh, well, that was pressed on this Mel Stride and he said mistakes were made. "And it's not going to happen again. It's very, very clear indeed. And it's relevant because we see another party, Reform, saying you know what Liz Truss said times, times five times three on a whole bigger scale. So we've learnt from that episode and those mistakes will never be made again." Ms Kuenssberg tried one more time, asking: "As a as a human being, if you make a mistake, you say, yeah, we messed up and you just say, then you say, sorry." The Shadow Home Secretary retorted: "Look, we've been really clear. I mean, I don't know how many more times to say it was a mistake. They got it wrong. And those mistakes will never be made again."
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Kemi Badenoch says she refuses to meet burka-clad constituents as Tories back allowing bosses to ban female staff from wearing Islamic veils
Kemi Badenoch has revealed she refuses to meet or speak to constituents who cover their faces as she backed allowing bosses to ban female staff from wearing burkas. The Conservative leader said she had a rule at surgeries in her North West Essex constituency that 'you have to remove your face covering, whether it's a burka or a balaclava'. It came as she backed allowing office managers to bar staff from wearing the traditional Islamic robe for women, which has only a transparent veil allowing them to see. However she stepped back from the idea of a nationwide ban on the garment, saying there were bigger issues when it came to integration. Her remarks came after Reform's chairman Zia Yusuf quit following a row over the subject after his colleague MP Sarah Pochin urged the Prime Minister to ban the burka 'in the interests of public safety'- before rejoining on Saturday night. Her position on burkas appeared to go further than that of shadow home secretary Chris Philp today. He agreed that 'employers should be allowed to decide whether their employees can be visible or not'. But asked if he would also ban face coverings at surgeries in his Croydon South constituency, he said: 'I have in the past spoken to people obviously wearing a burka – I represent a London constituency – but everybody can make their own choices, that's the point she was making, each employer should be able to make their own choices.' Mrs Badenoch said Britain could enforce a ban on burkas but what needs to be addressed are pressing issues around integration. She added that sharia courts and first-cousin marriage are an 'insidious' barrier to integration. She said: 'If you were to ask me where you start with integration – sharia courts, all of this nonsense sectarianism, things like first cousin marriage – there's a whole heap of stuff that is far more insidious and that breeds more problems. 'My view is that people should be allowed to wear whatever they want, not what their husband is asking them to wear or what their community says that they should wear.' She added: 'If you come into my constituency surgery, you have to remove your face covering, whether it's a burka or a balaclava. 'I'm not talking to people who are not going to show me their face, and I also believe that other people should have that control. 'Organisations should be able to decide what their staff wear; it shouldn't be something that people should be able to override.' France is just one of a number of countries that have already banned the burka. But Mrs Badenoch said: 'France has a ban and they have worse problems than we do in this country on integration. So banning the burka clearly is not the thing that's going to fix things.' If employers started to tell staff to remove any religious clothing, they could face legal issues under equality and human rights laws on the grounds they were being discriminating. An organisation would have to demonstrate its ban was for a legitimate reason, such as ensuring health and safety or enabling effective communication.
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why are we slashing foreign aid when it can help stop the boats?
When I was an MP in Kent, I saw the problems on our coastline – and have always supported tough measures to cut the number of people arriving in this country without permission. Later, as immigration minister, I took measures to stop people hiding in the backs of lorries, and more recently, I voted and spoke in favour of the Rwanda plan, set out by the former Conservative government. There is no single magic bullet to stop boats crossing the English Channel. But one key part of an effective strategy is to reduce the incentives for people to climb into those boats in the first place – to offer a stick as well as a carrot. As powerful new research from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy shows, well-targeted aid provides that incentive for someone to stay in their home country and abandon dreams of fleeing to Europe. It tackles the root causes of the problem, with benefits to us and would-be asylum seekers. We know that most people in these small boats come from countries in conflict, or where there have been humanitarian emergencies – from Afghanistan, Sudan, Syria, Eritrea – so delivering improvements where living conditions are desperate will mean fewer people starting the journey. I'm not talking about spending taxpayers' money to salve our consciences – my argument is that this would be spending our money wisely, in the interests of the British people. The Kiel research shows that, in Sub-Saharan Africa, a marked improvement in health and education services resulted in a 27 per cent fall in people saying they planned to move abroad over the next 12 months – the key ingredient in reducing that push factor. In the same way, if aid is spent wisely in conflict-stricken countries, it is a very effective tool in reducing the danger of fresh outbreaks of violence and, therefore, migration. In the future, as the climate crisis bites, helping agricultural communities adapt by providing better irrigation or more resistant crops will become an increasingly effective use of aid funds. As Tobias Heidland, professor of economics at Kiel University and the study's co-author, puts it: 'When aid improves basic services like healthcare and education – or helps stabilise post-conflict regions – people are less likely to leave.' The research underlines that most people only decide to migrate as a last resort. It is a choice they feel forced to make because they lack opportunity, physical security, or basic services such as healthcare and education. Targeted aid investments can improve these conditions. It also shows information campaigns highlighting the dangers of a journey, such as attempting to cross to Europe and on to the UK, can deliver a 10-20 per cent fall in the share of people ready to migrate – but only once they believe their own situation is no longer hopeless. This all means that relying on tough border controls alone to curb the type of migration we see almost every day in the English Channel will only take us so far. Success requires steps to stop journeys at their start, as well as at their end. Moreover, spending aid in this way is not only the clever thing to do, it can also be popular. Polling from More in Common found that three in five Britons and two-thirds of Reform voters support aid that reduces the numbers of people from war-torn countries seeking asylum in the UK. I regret the short-sighted decision to raid the UK's development budget for the funds that are badly needed to bolster our defence in an increasingly dangerous world, but I recognise that decision has been taken and is unlikely to be reversed. What matters now is to make the case for the survival of essential programmes beyond the current cost-cutting, for those that benefit us all. And there is no more obvious example of that than aid that tackles the small boats' crisis at source.
