Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

What the Palestinian people have endured is cruel, inhumane and completely unacceptable. We know that, last year, it was an Israeli Government blockade that led the United Nations and others to declare a famine in Gaza. We know that the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu for war crimes. We know that more than 90% of the homes across Gaza have been damaged or destroyed.

The UN’s “Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory” concluded that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza strip under the 1948 genocide convention, and human rights organisations such as the International Association of Genocide Scholars—which has already been mentioned—Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Oxfam have expressed the view that genocide has been committed by Israel under international law. Israel has also recently revoked the licences of 37 international NGOs.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

From working with the Norwegian Refugee Council, including my constituent Amelia Rule—who is its head of shelter and settlements—I know the vital work that charity is doing. As my hon. Friend has said, though, in January it was banned from operating in Gaza, along with 36 other NGOs and aid organisations. This move is plainly an attempt by the Israeli Government to circumvent international institutions and accountability. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government and the international community should attempt to use all their influence and leverage to push for that ban to be rescinded, so that aid organisations such as the Norwegian Refugee Council can continue their lifesaving work?

[Warinder Juss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

It seems quite clear that the reason the licences have been revoked is to prevent aid from going through, which leads to the assumption, at least, that there might be a risk of genocide taking place.

The UN genocide convention requires states

“to prevent and to punish”

genocide. I will repeat the definition in article II of the convention, which is that genocide is any act

“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”—

I emphasise the words “in whole or in part”—

“a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

We cannot stand by and pretend that it is for an international court to decide whether or not genocide has occurred in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and we cannot turn a blind eye as innocent Palestinian people continue to suffer. We are fortunate to have enough distinguished lawyers in this House to decide whether there is at least a risk of genocide having occurred and to conduct that risk assessment, as has been requested in this debate. When do we decide that enough is enough? When do we decide that enough innocent people have been killed and enough suffering has occurred for us to consider that an ally of ours, Israel, may be committing genocide under international law, and to take decisive, concrete action to prevent that genocide by the Israeli Government?

Middle East and North Africa

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend and her constituents. We will continue to take action as required to ensure that the rights of Palestinians are protected. Indeed, as she said, Israeli courts have upheld those rights on a number of occasions, and it is vital that the rule of law is seen and operates in these areas.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for all the work that he has been doing on these issues. What reason has the Israeli Government given for stopping NGOs operating in Gaza? If it is clear, as has been mentioned by other Members, that it is a deliberate act of cruelty to prevent healthcare and aid going into Gaza and to defeat the peace plan, what actions are we taking as a UK Government against Israel and to reinstate those NGOs?

[Mr Falconer]

As they have set out publicly, the Israeli Government have sought more detail about the Palestinian staff of those NGOs, but many of the NGOs have not provided it, given concerns over the targeting of aid workers. That impasse has led to the deregistration of many of those NGOs. A number of international parties, including the UK, have proposed acceptable solutions, consistent with humanitarian principles, to try to navigate these concerns, but they have not been taken up.

Venezuela

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

That is an extremely important issue, and I discussed exactly that with US Secretary of State Rubio yesterday in respect of how we ensure that there is stability in Venezuela and that stability is part of a pathway to democracy. I do not believe stability will be maintained if there is not that route to democracy—there must be a plan and a transition to democracy—but equally, it is hugely important to ensure that we do not have greater destabilisation by countries like Russia and Iran, but also by the criminal gangs that have been so deeply destructive and were allowed to become so powerful under the Maduro regime.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the confirmation that the Government support international law and now want to see a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate Government that reflects the will of the people in Venezuela, but does the Foreign Secretary at least agree that if Donald Trump’s unilateral action was in breach of international law and the UN charter, it has created a very dangerous precedent?

[Yvette Cooper]

The reason we stand up for the UN charter and international law is partly because it reflects our values and partly because it reflects our interests, and because that UN charter and international law framework underpin peace and security across the globe. Of course, throughout decades of history, international law and the UN charter have been tested and strained with the reality of different kinds of international affairs all over the world, and they will continue to be, but we still believe in the importance of advocating for international law and doing so with our closest allies.

Parkinson’s Disease

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Paul Davies]

I could not agree more. I will speak later about the postcode lottery, although it is not just a postcode lottery; it is across the whole nation. The hon. Member is absolutely right: we should be doing everything we can to ensure consistency of support and adequate support across the nation.

Innovation also offers hope. Produodopa—I think I probably said that better today than the last time I was here—was approved for NHS use in 2024. Earlier today, I was at an event organised by Parkinson’s UK and I was talking to a specialist—a neurologist—who was talking about the impact of medication and how much difference that will make. It was fascinating, and that five minutes was of huge value in helping me to understand the impact.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

On the question of innovation, the University of Wolverhampton, in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, recently launched a new course, in collaboration with the British Judo Association, to enable those suffering with Parkinson’s to remain active and to increase their confidence with physical activity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a multidisciplinary, comprehensive approach to Parkinson’s care, that this kind of support is crucial to supplement the specialist medical care he has spoken about, and that that is the best way to support those who are suffering from this awful disease?

[Paul Davies]

Again, I absolutely agree. I know from talking to one of my constituents, Liz Ryan, that that physical support and that ability to do something, get involved in activities and have help are of immense value. We absolutely have to have a holistic view of this issue; it is not a simple case of just medication or taking people into a clinical environment. We have to look at what we can do within communities, as was mentioned earlier, and at how we can support people with their lives and ensure that they live their lives to their full potential.

Some of the innovative medicines can certainly be life-changing for those with severe symptoms, but staffing and funding constraints mean that many hospitals cannot offer those solutions. Access to new treatments must not be a postcode lottery.

I want to take a moment to share some encouraging news from my constituency. We currently have a neurology registrar based in Leeds who is spending a significant amount of time seeing Parkinson’s patients in Huddersfield. He works alongside a dedicated doctor who also travels from Leeds to support patients at Huddersfield Royal infirmary. Just last month, they met the operations director at Huddersfield Royal infirmary, who shared some good news: in December, the trust will be advertising for a consultant neurologist with a special interest in Parkinson’s.

The role will be based in Leeds but will include a significant commitment to patients in Huddersfield. That is a direct result of our local campaign, and in particular the tireless work of our local Parkinson’s community group, led by Liz Ryan MBE and Dr Chris Ryan. It shows what can be achieved when patients, families, clinicians and elected representatives work together.

Sudan: Government Support

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Over 30 million people now need humanitarian aid in Sudan, and millions more have been displaced, with countless others living in fear, hunger and deprivation. Does the hon. Member agree that this crisis has been overlooked for far too long and that, for the sake of humanity, we need to turn our attention to Sudan and do what we can to provide aid and support to those who so desperately need it?

[Brian Mathew]

I heartily agree with the hon. Member.

Humanitarian workers are also under threat, and I commend the work being done as we speak by groups like Doctors without Borders—MSF—and the International Committee of the Red Cross. MSF has been treating hundreds fleeing El Fasher over the last week, including men, women and children suffering from severe malnutrition, gunshot wounds and other injuries linked to beatings and torture. As a former aid worker who has lived and worked in Sudan, although many years ago, I want to express my deep sadness over the killing of five Sudanese Red Crescent Society volunteers in Bara, North Kordofan. Humanitarian workers are often the first and sometimes only responders for people in desperate situations around the world, and they selflessly give their time and skills, as well as their courage and compassion. My heart goes out to their families.

Oral Answers to Questions

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to support the Gaza peace plan.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to support the Gaza peace plan.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

15. What steps she is taking to help secure a just and lasting peace in Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. Given the horrendous suffering that we have seen over the last two years, we need to ensure that the ceasefire holds. Part of that involves getting the humanitarian aid into Gaza. We are urging for more crossings to be opened and for restrictions on humanitarian aid to be lifted, and we are working on some of the crucial next steps, in conjunction with the US, Arab states and many other states that have been involved in supporting the ceasefire, including through the disarmament of Hamas and the development of new governance arrangements.

[Warinder Juss]

Despite the most welcome peace plan, we have already seen breaches in the form of Israeli air strikes, with the restriction of lifesaving supplies entering Gaza. What are we doing to ensure that sufficient humanitarian aid can get through to end the famine swiftly, and that the Israeli leadership is held accountable for violations of international law, so that we can finally see an end to the conflict, with no more innocent Palestinian or Israeli lives being lost?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is important that all sides hold to the ceasefire and implement all the steps committed to as part of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan. That involves getting the humanitarian aid in place and maintaining the ceasefire. We are working with the US and other countries to support an effective monitoring arrangement so that there can be a proper process in place to ensure that all sides hold to the ceasefire and keep moving forward.

Black History Month

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak in the debate. I am proud to be the son of an Irish immigrant. My dad Richard came over to the UK with his family when he was a young boy. They were looking for safe accommodation and paid work. I remember him sitting me down when I was a young boy, and telling me that his family, when in search of those things, would often come across two notices: “No Irish” and “No Blacks”. To learn that at such a young age, and to understand that prejudice was so built into our society, fired in me a desire to fight racism. It also continues to shock me, because that was not the distant past, but very recent indeed. This Black History Month, we celebrate the black men and black women who shaped Britain’s history—Bournemouth’s too—but we must also remember what many of them were forced to endure.

I am proud to represent Bournemouth East. Bournemouth is a young upstart—we can compare it with Christchurch, which is 1,200 years old, and Poole, which is 800 years old—that was really built from scratch only about 200 years ago. It was made by people who came from London and the home counties. It is, and has always been, a melting pot, and it is proud of that. It is a beautiful place to live, work and be, and I am proud that it is such an inclusive place.

Because Bournemouth is such a young town, black history is built into what Bournemouth has been. I think of Thomas Lewis Johnson, who was born into slavery in Virginia in 1826 and experienced slavery’s full brutality—physical punishment, harsh labour, the denial of basic human rights, and the mental trauma that will have gone with all that—but eventually he found his freedom. He became a minister and travelled the world preaching hope and equality. In the 1890s, he made Boscombe in Bournemouth his home, and he named his house Liberia in tribute to African independence. He became a British citizen in 1900 and, supported by a local community who recognised his courage, was able to do such things as write his autobiography, “Twenty-Eight Years a Slave”, in Bournemouth. It tells a story of faith, resilience and humanity. In it, he wrote,

“Though my body was confined my spirit remained free, and it was faith that guided me through the darkest hours.”

I am also thinking about Lilian Bader, who broke barriers of her own decades later. When racial discrimination kept people of Caribbean heritage out of the armed forces, she refused to accept it. In 1941 she became the first black woman to serve in the Royal Air Force, training as an instrument repairer and rising to acting corporal. After the war, she earned a degree, became a teacher and settled in Bournemouth with her family, and that legacy of service continued through her sons. She said,

“Father served in the First World War, his three children served in the Second World War. I married a coloured man who was in the Second World War, as was his brother who was decorated for bravery in Burma. Their father also served in the First World War. Our son was a helicopter pilot, he served in Northern Ireland. So all in all, I think we’ve given back more to this country than we’ve received.”

That legacy of service and that history—that Black history—is British history, and it is Bournemouth’s history. Their contributions call us to keep on building a town and a country where everyone’s contribution is seen, valued and celebrated.

I want to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). It is absurd that we cram black history into a month, and that we do not have a requirement for it to be taught in our curriculum. We rely on teachers—who are already frazzled by their heavy workload, and who have been looking for light at the end of the tunnel for so many years—to do the research, and to find the resources and time to teach black history, as well as other history, such as that of the civil rights campaign that led to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the history of gender equality, and LGBT+ history. We need to entrench the struggles of our country in the teaching of our curriculum, so that the children we raise know fully, as citizens, what our country has been through, and what its story will be. That is particularly true because, unfortunately, those contributions are being erased.

Nobody in Bournemouth should feel uncomfortable, unsafe or undervalued, yet I know all too well just how many black and Asian members of my community have felt targeted and excluded. I am thinking of a recent surgery appointment; a young black medical professional came and talked about his desire to live in Britain all his life. He said he would finish his shift, and on leaving the hospital, he would have to look over his shoulder, because he was concerned about being attacked. I heard the same story from an employee at Bournemouth university. I also think of an email that I received recently from the mum of a lovely young lad I know in Bournemouth called Dan. The message said:

“Lots of us out here silently vibrating on an axis of vigilance—anxiety, powerlessness, anger—wondering when the violence will touch us and our loved ones.”

That woman describes herself as a London exile. She moved to Bournemouth for a better life and a more tolerant society, and now, in this day and age, she is worried about her young boy having to experience the violence that she fled when she left London. She says that in London, she saw the British National party rampaging in the streets where she lived, and she worries that is coming to Bournemouth. It should be no surprise, and no shock, that I, as their Member of Parliament, will say that black lives matter. Before it was a political movement or a social organisation, it was a statement of fact, and it remains one. Black lives are important, yet some, in their actions and words, seek to cast doubt on that truth.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He has mentioned people who have come to this country and contributed greatly. As he and other Members have said, the problems we face are ones that we did not think we would see in this day and age. Only last week, I posted a photograph of myself out door-knocking and speaking to constituents, and somebody posted, “Another foreigner representing Wolverhampton.” I grew up being racially attacked, including physically, because I wore a turban and because of the colour of my skin, but even so, the comment shocked me, because I did not expect to hear it in present times. When I was thinking of how I would respond to that person, I wondered whether I should point out that 60% of NHS workers were not born in this country. As I was formulating a response, somebody responded, “Well, why don’t you stand at the next general election?”. I thought that that was a really good way of countering the comment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to face these issues, and that we need allies—people who are not black —to take part in Black History Month? That is how we will tackle the racism that people like me still feel. Anybody in public service will feel vulnerable, so we need as many people as possible to take part in this movement, and in the celebration of Black History Month.

[Tom Hayes]

I found my hon. Friend’s words very moving, and I appreciate his testimony. That will have been hard to share in the Chamber, but it is so important that he did, and I am sorry that he is going through those experiences. I agree with him entirely. I sometimes hesitate to contribute to these debates, because I do not want to take time from colleagues who have first-hand, direct experience of what it is like as a black person, but my hon. Friend has picked up on a really important point: allyship at this time is crucial. I will do everything I can to stand up for both my hon. Friend and the black people I represent, and I know that colleagues in this Chamber will do exactly the same. We must stand against racism.

On that point, it concerns me deeply that we have had a summer of such discontent, which promises to be a longer period of unfortunate hatred. Flying the flag should unite us, not divide us. One of my earliest memories is seeing Linford Christie draping the Union flag around himself after winning the Olympic gold in 1992. It was a wonderful moment, yet at present, there are people whose intention in flying the national flag is to exclude.

When the intention behind flying the flag is to cheer on our national sports team, it brings pride and belonging; it creates the joy and happiness that our country strives for. But when the intention is so deliberately to intimidate, and so consciously to exclude some people in my town of Bournemouth and across our country, it can only ever fuel the rising tide of racism that I know we all in this Chamber and across our country wish to reject. It makes no sense to me—indeed, it feels not just wrong and unfair but illogical—that, in some cases, the flag is flown in celebration of black and Asian footballers, and in other situations, it is flown to make their communities feel unwelcome. We should stop that. We should come together. We should unite as one country.

Let us not merely honour Black History Month in words and speeches, perhaps with the announcement of a statue, and with a further debate next year and the year after, in which we commit to doing things. Let us take action. Let us build a future in which equality is our shared legacy. I say that particularly to my constituents in Bournemouth, because we have been rocked by a summer of discontent, with frequent protests, which seem to have coincided with many years of feeling lost and hopeless.

Bournemouth is a young town, but over the course of its history, it settled into who it was. It was a seaside town, and people knew what our industry and our sectors were about. In recent years, with austerity and the loss of key employers, the town has lost its way a bit. It is looking to tell a different story. It is looking to tell a story of inclusion, hope and happiness. Just as black history has always been key to Bournemouth’s history, the contributions of black boys, girls, men and women will be key to Bournemouth as it finds its new story. We will move forward together, united against racism, and determined to build an equal, fair and just society under one flag.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

The humanitarian crisis that we are continuing to see in Gaza is appalling, horrific and unforgivable, and continues to worsen day by day. Since January, there have been 44,000 admissions of children for the treatment of acute malnutrition. We all know that the World Health Organisation, along with the UN, UNICEF and others, recently confirmed that Gaza is facing a man-made famine, with over half a million people affected.

I have often said, as have others, that Netanyahu will only listen to the voice of President Trump and the United States. As President Trump has criticised Netanyahu’s attack on Qatar, I ask the Government: is this not the perfect time to put further pressure on the United States to get an immediate ceasefire that includes full and proper humanitarian aid going into Gaza, facilitating the return of all hostages, and recognising the Palestinian state?

I am pleased that the Government have continued to condemn Israeli settlements and that they recognise that those settlements are illegal under international law. I am also pleased that they are committed to recognising Palestine as a state, but we cannot just sit back and say that we have done all that we can while the unimaginable suffering in Gaza and the occupied territories continues and worsens.

Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing the debate, although I have to say that I disagree with everything he said.

The Equality Act represented a pivotal change in our society and in our law, to create a kinder, more inclusive and equal Britain. I am grateful that, by and large, our society continues to uphold those values 15 years after the Act’s initial creation. However, I am here today to speak about a form of discrimination that is only partially covered by the Equality Act: caste discrimination, which certainly should not exist in British society. In 2010, the Labour Government included the legal power in section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, as amended, to outlaw caste-based discrimination in the UK. In 2013, Parliament changed that to a legal duty on Ministers to outlaw caste discrimination. Five years later, the Tory Government decided to get rid of that provision, but successive Governments did nothing about it.

Despite calls from authorities such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, and organisations such as the National Secular Society and the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance, there has been no move to implement section 9(5)(a). Indeed, the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance found that nearly one in 10 respondents in Britain say that they have experienced verbal abuse on the basis of caste discrimination, and that the same number report that they have missed out on promotion at work because of their caste.

Despite its good provisions, the Equality Act does not explicitly list caste as a protected characteristic, despite the amendments made back in 2013, which would mean that caste discrimination is recognised as a form of race discrimination in the same way as discrimination based on colour, ethnic or national origin, and nationality. It is time for the Government to introduce the recommended secondary legislation to make caste an aspect of race—contrary to what the hon. Member for Romford said, I believe that the Equality Act should be expanded.

We need to make caste discrimination illegal when it comes to employment and public services, including education. The provision is already in section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, but it needs to be implemented. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response so that I can reassure my constituents in Wolverhampton West that we are doing something for them, as they have suffered from caste-based discrimination.

Since 2013, numerous caste-based discrimination cases have been pursued in employment tribunals, and there have been other cases in which caste discrimination has been alleged—for example, in the NHS and, in one case, in a bakery—but the employers decided to settle out of court. The courts should not have to rely on case law to address caste-based discrimination, because that leaves the issue inconsistent and uncertain.

I ask that the Government take initiative now, further to section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, to provide clarity to our courts. They should implement a clear structure of redress for those impacted and stand alongside other countries, businesses and trade unions in confronting caste-based discrimination, so that we send a clear message to everyone in this country that hatred and discrimination in any form have no place in Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Surrey county councillor.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing today’s debate. For all the reasons that he so ably laid out, it is now well overdue that we honestly assess the impact of the Equality Act on people in the workplace and wider society and consider whether there is need for change. It is best practice to always reassess and measure outcomes, rather than assuming that something is working as intended.

I wish to focus on the public sector equality duty in the Act and on its broader impact on our public institutions. It was undoubtedly a well-meaning clause. However, as is often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The public sector equality duty in section 149 imposes a legal burden on public bodies to

“have due regard to the need to…eliminate discrimination…advance equality of opportunity…and…foster good relations”

between people with different protected characteristics. That all sounds rather wonderful, but the reality is that it has become a powerful, often unaccountable force that we see distorting public priorities and fuelling ideological dogma. We see local councils that are more concerned with ensuring that residents are anti-racist than with ensuring that bus services to schools and colleges are adequate. We see them painting rainbows on our roads rather than fixing them, and speaking warm words about the importance of accessibility for disabled people while failing to cut hedges back or adjust bus stops.

We all undoubtedly support the ambition that everyone—no matter their protected, or indeed unprotected, characteristics—be given the same opportunities, be treated fairly and have the chance to thrive and prosper through hard work and talent. However, looking at the impact that the public sector duty has had, I believe that it was a mistake to think that that was the answer. If anything, it has highlighted difference, undermined meritocracy and, in some cases, pitted groups against each other. It is now often helpful to someone’s career or studies to be oppressed in some shape or form, leading to the absurd situation in which some of the most talented people are blocked. That does no one any favours, and certainly not our country.

EDI, or DEI as some people call it, has become a lucrative industry. Every public body, from local district councils and hospitals to police forces and schools, is now required to evidence, audit, review and revise policies in the light of how they impact protected groups, regardless of the outcomes that those policies deliver. A 2022 Policy Exchange report found that major public institutions are spending tens of millions of pounds annually on equality, diversity and inclusion roles, as well as training and compliance measures, all to ensure that they tick the right boxes against the public sector equality duty.

The issue is not just the cost. What makes the public sector equality duty potentially damaging is the way in which it enables particular ideologies to seep into institutions and spaces that ought to be wholly neutral on such issues. Because the duty is so broadly framed, and because it requires anticipatory rather than reactive compliance, it has given rise to a culture of pre-emptive overreach. Public bodies feel compelled to insert themselves into questions of speech, behaviour and belief that ought to lie outside their remit. More and more, we see a move away from facts and evidence towards fashionable beliefs within institutions that should be impartial. We see that in councils demanding that their staff include pronouns in their signatures, in police forces being trained to detect unconscious bias, and even in the Welsh Government, where they have pledged to make the country anti-racist.

There is nothing neutral or impartial about such choices. They reflect specific world views, and by embedding them in policy and practice, the public sector equality duty is demanding adherence to such ideas as a precondition for working in the public sector or using its services. That cannot be right. It is little wonder that public confidence has been eroded. More in Common’s “Shattered Britain” report tells of swathes of the public who now view public institutions with mistrust, partly because within such institutions a narrow set of values now dominates, and any dissent is smacked down as bigotry or even dismissed as far-right.

Like all Members present, no doubt, I have heard accounts from my constituents of what that looks like in practice. I have heard from people who feel baffled and confused by all the focus on diversity, unconscious bias and pronouns, rather than on things that actually affect their day-to-day life in a meaningful way, such as fly-tipping and potholes.

My central point is that the public sector equality duty does not just waste taxpayer money; it actively distorts how services are delivered and allows ideology to permeate them. We have seen NHS trusts wasting fortunes on a parade of diversity-focused roles. In the case of NHS Fife, the bureaucratic machinery was brought to bear against a nurse for objecting to a biological man entering her changing room. Meanwhile, West Yorkshire police felt that it would be a valid use of £4.5 million to send their entire workforce away to be lectured for two days on the slave trade. We can only wonder if that time would have been better spent trying to solve some crimes.

I am of the view that we should reconsider whether the public sector equality duty is fit for purpose, and whether a return to a model under which equality means equal treatment for all would have better outcomes.

[Warinder Juss]

I accept that we should not have tick-box exercises, but does the hon. Member not agree that legislation should reflect changing social values? Were it not for the fact that we have equality legislation, we might still be suffering the social ills that we suffered back in the ’60s and ’70s, which I remember from growing up in Wolverhampton. We have moved on. Does the hon. Member not agree that that is partly because of the legislation that has been passed to highlight to people what is and is not acceptable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this debate. This issue is having a fundamental impact on our society but is not discussed enough. I associate myself with his remarks about Don’t Divide Us and its excellent report, which I urge everybody to read.

We are not a country that divides ourselves into tribe, clan or creed. We do not believe that one sex is more intelligent or more modest than the other. We do not persecute people for their religion or sexuality. At our heart, we are a country built on Christian and enlightenment values and common law. The desire for reason and the belief that we should want for our neighbour what we want for ourselves and that we should be equal before the law have steered us towards being a more meritocratic society than almost any other in the world.

I believe in making sure that opportunity can reach people no matter their background, class or circumstances, and I do think that we have some way to go in that regard. However, deep in our national psyche, we believe in judging someone by their character and not by their characteristics.

There is a proud legacy of laws passed by Parliament that shows this tendency of ours to protect the few from discrimination or harassment by the many. As many Members have said, the Equality Act 2010 brought together many existing laws on discrimination, including rights for pregnant women and disabled people. Those were certainly important pieces of legislation, but they serve as a reminder that just as human rights were not created by the Human Rights Act in 1998, equality was not created by the Equality Act in 2010.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), talked about being evidence-based; the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights conducted a review of the public sector equality duty in Scotland and found that

“there was virtually no robust evidence of positive change in the lives of people with protected characteristics”.

We should not fall into the trap of treating this piece of legislation as flawless or beyond scrutiny just because it speaks to values that we hold dear.

The Equality Act did not just bring together discrimination and harassment laws, but went much further. It imposed a legal duty on public bodies and private institutions to promote equality based on nine specific characteristics. In turn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out, that has created an industry that wants to force a statistically perfect division on the basis of sex and race in all parts of society, even though that is impossible to achieve. It encourages us to presume that every disparity is a result of prejudice and to turn even minor workplace differences into legal grievances. Worst of all, unelected officials in our institutions have worked behind closed doors with radical activists, who prescribe social engineering to get equal outcomes, even when it takes a hammer to the British people’s sense of fairness and is against the law.

In seeking to progress equality, these aspects of the Act have changed our culture and taken us backwards. We do not believe that people should be held back from progression because of their protected characteristics, but in the RAF, white male recruits were deliberately blocked from training and given fewer opportunities because of their race and sex. We do not believe that women should be paid less than men for the same work, but in the Department for Education, they are using the Equality Act to justify paying men a thousand pounds more than women for the same jobs in childcare.

We do not believe in employing people just because of their race, but senior officers at West Yorkshire police rigged the recruitment process to hire an ethnic minority candidate, who had failed their interview, just to meet a diversity target. Thanks to the Labour Government, a young person’s opportunity to take their first steps serving this country in the civil service is based not on how hard they work but on what job their parents did when their child was 14 years old. If you are the child of a nurse, cabbie or shopkeeper, I am sorry, but you are just not working class enough—the door is shut to you. In internships up and down the country, including at MI6, young white people have been told they cannot even apply.

Here is the problem: the Equality Act has created a hierarchy of diversity. Women are told that their rights are not as important as trans rights. If a white boy grew up in care, had parents were alcoholics or had recovered from a life-changing disease, tough luck—he is not as deserving as an ethnic minority. Who is to say whose adversity has been more of a challenge? How can we fit the whole of human experience into these tidy little boxes? When rights clash, as they do, who gets to choose which group is deemed more worthy? When it came to gender ideology, it was bureaucrats behind closed doors, often working hand in glove with extreme activist groups. When women lost their jobs or were forced to share changing rooms with men, it was HR departments citing the Equality Act who held the pitchforks. Across the NHS, police forces, local councils and Government Departments, it was unelected officials who were using the Equality Act as a weapon to undermine meritocracy.

In the cases of Birmingham and Next, it was unaccountable, independent experts who decided that manual shift work was equal to retail and office work. In the case of Next, when employees were given the chance, they refused to move to warehouses. The work was deemed of equal value, even when it was clearly not thought to be so by the workers themselves. That is simply absurd. One ruling bankrupted a council, and the other will push up costs for consumers, all because of decisions made by people who are unaccountable. More such cases are on the way.

This hierarchy of diversity does not reflect the values upon which this country was built: fairness and merit, judging individuals by their actions and their character, not by their immutable characteristics. We cannot assign innocence or guilt, merit or privilege, by characteristic, placing some groups on a pedestal while others are pushed aside. The public see a society where protection is selective, and where the playing field tilts towards those who can claim special status. We heard today calls from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) to have yet more special statuses, but surely, the answer is this: the law that protects me from discrimination should protect my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and his constituents from discrimination, when we are all equal before the law.

It is about to get worse, because the Government are set on introducing an Islamophobia definition, which they have tried to do behind closed doors. That will have a chilling effect on the ability of our public services to grasp difficult and sensitive issues, such as grooming gangs, gender inequality or Islamist extremism. They are doing this under the pretence of combating hatred and violence, which are already against the law.

Instead of doing the hard graft of breaking down barriers and creating opportunity, Ministers want to hand yet more powers to consultants and HR officials in a undefined race and equality Bill to further shape the world according to who they deem worthy. It is easier, after all, to talk about quotas at diversity conferences than it is to fix entrenched problems in education, geography, family structures and culture. Because it is easier to judge physical characteristics, it risks creating a system that overlooks each individual’s personal circumstances and what they may have overcome.

Giving pen pushers more authority to dictate who is privileged does not create more opportunity or make Britain more fair or prosperous, so we should ask: what message does this send to our children? Do we want them to believe that their future is determined by tick boxes on a form? Do we want them to grow up thinking that fairness means that some doors are closed to them because of their race or sex, or do we want them to live in a country where the law guarantees equal treatment and opportunity for all?

It is time to put an end to the social experiment and return to first principles: equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity in life and the belief that the people of this country can rise as far as their talent and determination can take them. That is what genuine equality looks like, and that is what the British people believe in.

[Warinder Juss]

I take the right hon. Lady’s point about everyone being equal under the law, but what happens if somebody is not made equal under the law? What redress would that person have, were it not for legislation that is currently in place?

[Claire Coutinho]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is talking about discrimination. The point of being equal under the law is that the same protections from discrimination can protect his constituents, the hon. Member for Romford and me. The whole point of our common-law system is that we must all face the same law, whether that is for penalty or in the case of discrimination and harassment. He refers to many of the examples of discrimination and harassment that are in the Equality Act, but they were not created by that Act; they were created decades and decades earlier.

Middle East

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I think I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, and that is what we are attempting to do.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Instead of taking substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and agreeing to an immediate ceasefire and long-term sustainable peace, the Israeli Government have ignored us. They have failed to let aid go through, and created a man-made famine. It appears to me that the Israeli Government will only listen to Donald Trump and the United States, so can the Foreign Secretary please confirm what discussions he has had with Donald Trump to take action against the Israeli Government?

[Mr Lammy]

As I have said, I have spoken to Secretary of State Rubio, Envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice-President Vance about these issues. I leave discussions with the President of the United States to our great Prime Minister.