Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I welcome the opportunity to bring to the Floor of the House the issue of the impact on British society of the Equality Act 2010, a topic that I believe is increasingly being raised not only by my constituents in Romford, but more widely across the United Kingdom by people whose lives are affected on a daily basis because of this legislation. It has also been the subject of detailed research in the recent report from the think-tank Don’t Divide Us, which was co-authored by Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert and Dr Anna Loutfi, and which I commend to Members of all parties and to the wider public.

For centuries, our common-law tradition has been at the vanguard in the defence of what we consider our liberties as Britons. Ushered in 900 years ago and emboldened by Magna Carta in 1215, common law enshrined the once revolutionary principle that all individuals are equal before the law, judged not as members of groups, but as subjects of the Crown, with inherent rights. From that tradition came trial by jury, which has its origins in Anglo-Saxon England, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. Were those gifts from Brussels or Strasbourg? Of course not. They are the hard-won fruits of our own history and the innovative quality of our forebears and the generations that have come before us.

When the Equality Act was passed in 2010, we were told by the now Baroness Harman that it would end discrimination, give everyone a fair chance in life and bring transparency. Those are fine words indeed, yet they give the impression that Parliament can, through sheer willpower, eliminate some of the more damaging and derisive aspects of human nature. Fifteen years on, the reality is, I am sad to say, very different. The Act has not united our country; it has divided it. It has not reduced discrimination; it has fuelled grievance. It has not strengthened our traditions of fairness; it has undermined them. In fact, it has fanned the very flames that it sought to extinguish.

In the first instance, the Act is woefully drafted. Let us take as an example the alleged definition of race. Section 9 defines that as including, but not limited to, “colour; nationality; ethnic or national origins.” That is imprecise and confusing and has generated a grey area in law. Simply put, it is a poor expression of parliamentary intention, whatever that was at the time. We are also seeing absurd contradictions. Section 13(5) bans racial segregation, yet guidance under the Equality Act allows organisations to create separate spaces based on combinations of protected characteristics. In practice, that could mean the state sanctioning racial segregation in Britain in 2025, all in the name of equality.

The Act and the imported ideology that underpins it have created a culture of division and victimhood. It is the legislative foundation of what today is called DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion—and the ever-expanding industry of woke training sessions and quotas.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

As bad as that situation is, it is in fact accentuated and worsened by the prevailing situation in Northern Ireland, where not only have we equality legislation, but, pursuant to article 2 of the protocol governing post-Brexit arrangements, there are applied additional so-called rights that have been used by activist judges to strike down already two pieces of legislation from this Parliament—the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Whether one agrees with the content or not, is it not quite appalling that within one part of the United Kingdom there are foreign jurisdictions imported through the protocol that give different so-called rights from elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Before I call Andrew Rosindell again, I remind Members that if they would like to make a significant contribution today, they should bob, and I will get them in for the debate. I call Andrew Rosindell.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right that in this country, sadly, we have divided our own nation by treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the kingdom. That was a huge error by, I am afraid to say, the last Conservative Government, which agreed to the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor framework. I am against both, and I look forward to a future Government repealing them so that we have one United Kingdom, where all people in these islands are treated equally and the same.

As set out clearly by Don’t Divide Us, the truth is that the Equality Act should really be called the inequality Act. Instead of treating every citizen as an individual equal before the law, the Equality Act elevates certain so-called protected characteristics and encourages people to see themselves not as fellow Britons, but as members of competing groups. Far from promoting individual merit, the Equality Act is simply state-sponsored identity politics.

What has been the result? Our English legal system has sadly been Americanised through the introduction of a corrosive culture of litigation in the workplace. Since 2017, race discrimination claims in employment tribunals have tripled, with more than 200,000 cases. Yet only 5% have been upheld, which tells us something very important: either Britain is riddled with invisible discrimination that even our judges cannot detect, which, given the richness of our legal traditions, I simply do not accept, or the law is unfit for purpose. In practice, it has turned the workplace into a battleground of claims and counterclaims. Despite the small number of successful claims, the statistics demonstrate the damage caused in places of work. Victim culture has not only been allowed to dominate the workplace, but been actively encouraged by the legislation.

To take one example, in the case of Williams v. Nottingham, the judge noted:

“the claimant thinks the existence of a ‘racial disparity’ is in…itself proof of racism”.

However, the damage goes much deeper. The Equality Act is not simply a tidying-up of previous anti-discrimination laws; as hinted earlier, it represents a wholesale shift away from our common-law tradition where everyone is equal before the law towards a continental EU-style system based on substantive equality, group rights and bureaucratic enforcement. It was inspired by EU directives, in direct contradiction of our legal heritage. It hands enormous power to quangos, activist lawyers and DEI consultants, while eroding the space for free thought, free speech and personal judgment.

Some right hon. and hon. Members suggest that repealing the Equality Act would mean enabling inequality, but that is simply wrong. Just as repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 would not abolish human rights, repealing the Equality Act would not abolish equality. Human rights and equality existed long before these Blairite statutes. In fact, equality as we would define it today finds its roots here in these islands of the United Kingdom.

The underlying ideology of diversity is not neutral, as many on the left of politics suggest. It treats diversity as an unqualified good and, by implication, majority identity—whether English, Scots, Christian or British—as a problem to be managed. That is why so many of our constituents feel that these laws are not written for them and certainly not in their interests. The majority who simply want to live by the law, pay their taxes and contribute to society feel increasingly alienated by a system that tells them they have privilege that must be checked, while others are encouraged to claim special treatment. That does not sound like equality to me.

The Equality Act has given rise to a sprawling industry, made up of an army of bureaucrats, consultants, trainers and lawyers, all feeding off the taxpayer. Repealing it, as I am advocating today, would mean considerable savings, as vast sums of public money are poured into funding this circus. Repealing the legislation would both restore common sense to our institutions and deliver real value for money to the taxpayer. Estimates suggest substantial savings, with annual reductions in compliance costs running into tens or probably thousands of millions—it is very hard to quantify, but it is a huge sum of money when we consider all the public institutions that spend money on promoting the DEI agenda, money that should be going to our frontline public services instead.

The NHS Confederation has indicated that DEI roles alone are costing the taxpayer nearly £40 million, and I am sure that is an underestimate of what is really being spent. That is just one sector; goodness only knows what the total bill is across the public sector, in local government, the police and educational institutions—and let us not forget the BBC. It is time to put the taxpayer first and end this costly charade.

The private sector and the corporate world have also been sucked into this dangerous ideology, spending vast sums of money in ticking every woke box while engaging in constant virtue signalling. None of this is cost-free to the public either: ultimately, it all must be paid for out of the pockets of their customers. Some will say, “But you had 14 years in government—why didn’t you repeal it?” to which I say that I, the Member of Parliament for Romford, have opposed the Equality Act from the very beginning. I never believed it would deliver what was promised, and I have consistently warned of the dangers of this ideological agenda. Sadly, too many in my party doubled down on it; some even wanted to extend it. I know that the shadow Minister here today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), is not of that view, but sadly, over the last 14 years, many in my party sucked it all up, carried on with it and wanted to extend it. That was a grave mistake, and Britain is suffering as a result.

The Labour Government talk of introducing a new race equality Act—another bright idea from the same failed mindset. The Equality Act has caused so much harm; adding another layer of identity politics into the law will make matters even worse, and I urge the Government to rethink that idea.

Likewise, we increasingly hear calls to adopt a legal definition of Islamophobia. What kind of society do we want to live in? One where these proposed definitions conflate criticism of an ideology or a religion with hatred of people? Criticising Islam as a religion is not the same as hating people of the Muslim faith. Indeed, freedom of thought and freedom of speech require the ability to critique religious ideas, no matter what the religion may be. To criminalise such critique would be wholly inconsistent with the liberal, democratic principles that have evolved in this country over centuries.

It is more important than ever that we as Members of Parliament, in the mother of all Parliaments, do not cower from taking decisions that, at face value, may seem unpopular. Trust me: the residents of my constituency of Romford, and in every corner of the United Kingdom, would wholeheartedly endorse the reversal of these laws, as the problems we face lie at the heart of the legislation itself.

In my opinion, we should repeal the Equality Act root and branch, we should repeal the Human Rights Act, and the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European convention on human rights. Indeed, we should dismantle the Blairite constitutional reforms that have corroded our democracy and wedged our politics between a long-standing tradition of parliamentary sovereignty on the one hand, where power rests in this place—the Crown in Parliament—and an attempt at an American-style separation of powers on the other hand that has led to the outsourcing of Parliament’s ability to govern to so-called experts.

Those systems are mutually exclusive, and we must pick one. As a Conservative and Unionist, I see the intrinsic value of defending the constitutional traditions that have embedded themselves in these islands for 1,000 years and that have been exported successfully around the world, to the Commonwealth nations in particular. We must return to the great principle that has served this country well for centuries: equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender or background. That is the British way. That is our common law tradition. That is the true way to guarantee equality.

The Equality Act is not bringing our people together; rather, it is driving them apart. It is fuelling an imported woke culture, an unmeritocratic DEI bureaucracy and a corrosive culture of grievance. We must therefore challenge the equality law house of cards constructed over previous decades and topple it to the ground—or face the prospect of an ever more divided society. We should be proud to identify ourselves as British first and foremost and be truly glad to live in a society where all are treated equally under the ancient laws and customs that have made these cherished islands the great nation that it is and must continue to be.

09:49

[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.

09:53

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—he and I have been friends for many years. Like me and many others, he holds a love for Britain, so I look forward to working with him.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) clearly illustrated his concerns about the Britain we live in, some of which I share, and he set out what he wishes to achieve. I will make some comments about that in a wee minute.

It is encouraging—indeed, wonderful—that we have legislation to protect minorities across the UK. I believe that we must do that, and the hon. Member for Romford did not say that we should not. We must protect all minorities and discourage direct and indirect discrimination. Of course, there is always more work to be done. We need to perfect all of that and do it right, so it is good to be here to say that.

I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, and the legislation in Northern Ireland is different from the legislation in England and Wales. I want to illustrate that, and then set out where I would hope to be. Northern Ireland does not use the Equality Act legislation that England and Wales use. Back home, the legislation is separate and more complex, as the Minister is well aware from her discussions with the relevant Minister back home. That framework of equality laws developed over a period of time, and the Equality Act, in conversation, does not directly apply to Northern Ireland.

For example, we have separate pieces of legislation relating to sex discrimination, race relations, disability discrimination and employment treatment. I suspect that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, if he had the time to check what we do in Northern Ireland, would find that he was more at home with our legislation, based on his comments just now.

The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is the main body overseeing equality laws and protections, and has long advocated for a single piece of legislation. I raise concerns around certain legislation, such as the Equality Act, which does the opposite of what it intends—it intends to do something but, in fact, springs back in the opposite direction.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On the issue of the opposite to what is intended happening in practice, does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly with DEI-related matters, although legislative changes seek to protect those who have genuinely been affected and feel they must seek redress, they often attract people who will maliciously use them to further a political agenda and then derive more capital, rather than having a genuine grievance that has to be addressed?

[Jim Shannon]

I am going to outline the society that I would like to see, and which I think everyone in this Chamber would probably want; it is not a perfect world, because the world is never perfect, but it is the society that I would like to see. My hon. Friend outlined how legislation can sometimes be used to discriminate against a majority, rather than to help a minority, and I will give some examples of that.

The intention of the Equality Act is to harmonise discrimination law to create a fairer and more equal society—that is us back home. To take the example of employment, so many jobs nowadays promote equality and good in careers and hiring new starts. However, on the application form for the civil service, for example, candidates are not even able to put their educational achievements or their employment history, often leaving qualified people behind. That is equality, but is it? I pose that question.

Perhaps I am old-fashioned in my approach; indeed, my wife and children tell me I am old-fashioned, so I probably am. I hope hon. Members will forgive me for being old-fashioned and for being from that generation that perhaps sees things in a slightly different way. Years mature you, and they have definitely matured me. I do not see things the same way as I did 20 or 40 years ago; I see things very differently today in the society we live in. The society I want to see is a pluralistic society where we can all have our differences but still live together side by side, and where we can hold on to our beliefs, strengths and convictions but at the same time respect others. That is the place I want to be.

However, we do not legislation to tell us how to treat people; we need to look individually at how we treat people. It is common sense to me that we do not discriminate against people because of their skin colour or disability. That should never happen. I know that society is making sure that that does not happen, and I welcome that. My issue lies when the majority—I think this is the issue referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell)—becomes a minority because of the legislation, for example, on equal opportunity employment. That just cannot be right. By the way, I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. She and I have been friends for many years. I know she encapsulates the thoughts and concerns we have, and I look forward to her response.

House of Commons Library research highlights the fact that the Women and Equalities Unit leads work in policy, and one of its priorities is tackling violence against women and girls. You will know this, Dr Allin-Khan, and I suspect that everybody will: the violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland is horrendous. The number of ladies who have died over the last number of years, percentage-wise, is phenomenally greater in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. The legislation that we have does not really address that, but it needs to.

It is a growing issue. In the past 10 weeks, I think 10 people have been murdered. My goodness! I do not know what is happening in society. Sometimes I despair, to be perfectly honest. This Chamber will be all too familiar with the devastation that Northern Ireland has witnessed as a result of female homicides and the shocking and unbelievable figures on domestic abuse. Those are issues on which we all want and require action.

I put on record my thanks to my DUP colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), for her tremendous work in speaking out against the Equality Commission’s intervention on the Supreme Court ruling on what a woman is. She has been and continues to be a vocal advocate for the protection of women’s rights and for ensuring that people do not lose sight of the importance of the issue.

Although it is great, and it is pivotal, that we have guidance and legislation in place to protect people, we must never let other groups potentially fall behind as a result. If that is what happens, it is not achieving its goal. I want, as I think we all do, to live in a world where we accept others for what they are and where we do not fall out because they have a different culture or history, come from a different part of the world or have a different religion. That should not matter. It does not matter to me, personally. We do not have to agree with every choice that an individual makes, but we can agree to differ.

As you and others will know, Dr Allin-Khan, I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I believe emphatically, as a Christian. I will speak up for those with a Christian faith, I will speak up for those with other faiths and I will speak up for those with no faith, because I believe that it is my job to do so. That is how I feel in my heart, and I believe that that is the right way. That is the society that I wish to have: a pluralistic society where we can live together.

Many years ago in Northern Ireland—I have had many years in Northern Ireland, probably more than most—I was brought up in a society in which violence, conflict and difference were the way things were. But today they are not, and that is the society I want. That is what we should be seeking through this debate, and I think it is what the hon. Member for Romford wants to achieve. He has highlighted some of the issues that have to be addressed.

We can live in a world where discrimination is not prevalent and where respect is given. That is the utopia that I want to live in, where we can all have friendships and relationships and be on speaking terms. In this Chamber I am no better than anybody else—far from it—but I make it a point to engage with Members of all political views. It is no secret that my politics lie left of centre, but I try to respect people. There are things that we might disagree on—the past six months have probably been the most difficult of my life on the issues that we have had to face in the Chamber, as they it may have been for some others—we will sometimes also agree.

I have had great concerns over the abortion legislation, the assisted dying legislation, welfare reform and family inheritance tax. Those are massive issues for my constituents; I have received thousands of emails about them. But even though we may not win the votes all the time, we have to respect others. I have learned that the House can fairly well be split into a majority and a minority on some of these things.

I look to the Minister to recognise people’s concerns and, potentially, to engage further with her counterparts in Northern Ireland to ensuring that legislation is in place to protect people. It is always good to swap ideas, to exchange and to learn. I hope and pray that we can have a society where we can live better together. That is my ultimate goal in the Chamber. I do not think any MP will ever find me chastising them or shouting across the Chamber; it is just not my form, although I will agree to differ. Perhaps sometimes we need to do just that.

10:04

[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?

[Rebecca Paul]

I think the hon. Member and I will just have to disagree, because I do not believe that legislation is the solution to these things. What is much more powerful is societal attitudes and norms, and education. That is how we get the change that we want. That is also how to ensure that the spirit of the ambition is met. As soon as we try to legislate, there will be loopholes and grey areas where it is not quite clear what something means. We have got ourselves mixed up in a whole host of issues and trouble as a result of trying to define something that is common sense.

All of us in this Chamber undoubtedly share the same ambition. We want everyone to be treated fairly; we just disagree on the way to do it. I do not think that it is possible to prescribe in legislation how people should act decently. There will always be some loophole or difference in interpretation that means that the law can be misused. I believe that it is absolutely right to move away from thinking that legislation is the silver bullet to all our ills. We should actually put faith in the behaviour of the people of this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford says, we dealt with these things before and we have the mechanisms to do this.

Most people in this country are well-intended and trying to do the right thing. Let us have some faith in this country and not just tie ourselves up in knots. Let us get back to delivering for our constituents and residents. They do not want us tying ourselves up in knots, effectively looking for social injustice the whole time rather than cracking on and sorting out our NHS so that everyone gets the treatment they need, and ensuring that our schools are giving the best education for our children. Let us get back to the priorities of the British people and stop wasting our time with all this stuff.

Right: back to my speech. I think I have summed it up in my response to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), so I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Romford again for securing the debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. It has been a good use of our time to debate how effective the Equality Act and its various provisions have been. I hope that we will continue this important conversation.

10:14

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for bringing this debate, although I do not think it will surprise him to know that the Liberal Democrats do not agree with most of what he has said either, I am sorry.

The Equality Act was a landmark in our legal and social history. It consolidated decades of anti-discrimination laws into one clear piece of legislation and gave expression to values that I think most of us share: fairness, dignity and equal opportunity. Since it came into force, the Act has had a real impact. It has given workers stronger tools to challenge discrimination in the workplace. It has supported equal pay claims and required organisations to make accessibility a priority. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) produced an absolutely brilliant video on Instagram yesterday, showing the BBC around this place and, in the process, demonstrating how absolutely inaccessible it is for people like her.

Just as importantly, the Act has helped to normalise the idea that equality is not optional but the baseline that we expect in a modern society. But legislation is only ever as strong as the means of enforcing it. The cuts to both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and to legal aid have made it much harder in practice for people to challenge discrimination. We can pass the most ambitious laws in the world, but if people cannot access justice, rights remain theoretical.

There is also more to do. Although the Act has been vital in tackling workplace discrimination, carers still face significant barriers at work. Too many people—often women—find themselves having to choose between their job and their caring responsibilities. At the last election, the Liberal Democrats called for caring to be recognised as a protected characteristic under the Act, which would place a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments for those with caring responsibilities, so that people can balance work and care more effectively. This would be a practical reform and it is long overdue.

We must also acknowledge where the Act has gaps. It does not explicitly address intersectionality, whereby people can face multiple and overlapping forms of discrimination. For example, someone might be disabled and from an ethnic minority background, but the way that those disadvantages interact is not always recognised by the current framework. We need to consider that more carefully.

Also, new challenges are emerging. Much of our daily life now takes place online—at work, in education and in our social lives. Digital exclusion and online discrimination and abuse are real and growing problems. If equality is to mean anything in the 21st century, the protections that we offer must evolve to meet new realities.

The Equality Act should provide a framework that protects all groups. It should not be used to stoke so-called culture wars or to set the rights of one community against those of another, for example by pitting the majority population—whoever they are—against the diverse. Our approach should be evidence-based, respectful and rooted in the belief that upholding the rights of one group strengthens the rights of all.

The Equality Act was a landmark. Our task now is to defend it, to strengthen it and to ensure that it continues to live up to its original promise of fairness, dignity and equal opportunity for everyone.

10:17

[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.

10:27

[The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to respond to the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing it. It is important that we discuss these issues in this place and have a debate about what evidence we use in these debates, whether some evidence should be challenged and what opportunities there are to look at other pieces of evidence differently. It is important to continue to have an evidence-based discussion, be respectful when we challenge the premises on which we choose to build our opinions and come back to what we all want to see: equality of opportunity for all.

On the first point on which I gently—or perhaps not so gently—disagree with the hon. Gentleman, I fundamentally believe that equality enables freedom for people to be able to live their lives, to rent and to work, without fear of discrimination or prejudice holding them back.

An important point was raised in this debate: we all want and believe that everybody should be equal under the law. They should be and I hope that they are, but there is a fundamental question about what happens when somebody is discriminated against and how our legal framework can bring redress. We are talking not about whether we believe in equality, but whether we believe that the law should defend people’s equality, and whether that is a value we all subscribe to.

Let me say something about how this has become about identifying whether someone is British. Let me tell the hon. Member for Romford that I am proud to identify as British before anything else, as somebody who was born in Hammersmith. He may also want to challenge those who, on my appointment as a Foreign Office Minister this week—perhaps he did not get the same on his appointment as a shadow Foreign Office Minister—told me that I was another foreigner and should go home. This is my home. This is my country. This is my Parliament. It is important that everything we say in this House defends our democracy and people’s right to live their lives in this country equally.

It is important that we understand our responsibility as legislators to ensure that we have a legal framework that defends people’s rights, particularly against a rising climate of hate and racism. I am sure that all Members across the House, whatever their background, will want to ensure that all their constituents—many of whom will have lived here for decades, bringing up their families, being law-abiding citizens, paying their taxes, contributing to our public services, starting and growing their businesses—are protected under the law. It is extremely important that we do not go backwards on the rights and freedoms that we protect under our legislation.

I welcome this opportunity to champion the positive impact of Labour’s Equality Act 2010. This year is the 15th anniversary, which is an important chance to recognise the other side of the argument: the achievements of that historic, landmark legislation. The Act was passed by giants of our movement, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Baroness Harman for her work on it. With a vision of bringing legislation together to simplify it and avoid different parts competing against one another, Britain’s equalities provisions were consolidated into one Act of Parliament, cementing rights in Britain for generations to come, empowering people who experience discrimination with the knowledge that they have the law and systems on their side and, importantly, giving them redress when it is needed.

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank the Minister for her speech. Labour Members always try to equate protections against discrimination and harassment with the entirety of the Equality Act but, as many have said, protections against discrimination and harassment existed before the Act. They also exist in many other pieces of legislation, such as the Public Order Act 1986 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. What answer does the Minister have to my questions about the public sector equality duty, which talks about advancing equality by taking specific action to address disproportionate participation? That is where we have seen some internships excluding young white people, for example.

[Seema Malhotra]

Let me make a couple of remarks in response to the right hon. Lady’s challenge. It is important that our legislation is used in a way that follows the letter and spirit of the law. I do not want to see debates like this become culture wars. We want to be led by the evidence.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of white working-class males. We have seen in the data that there is an underperformance among that group, which is really important. It is unacceptable that any young person is either not given the opportunity to succeed or not supported. Over the next year, it is our priority to tackle head-on the gap facing white working-class pupils, which the right hon. Lady will know because she is an avid follower of what the Government are doing. It is important that we look at where there is underperformance statistically and whether there are systemic issues in relation to that. This autumn, our schools White Paper will set out an ambitious and practical plan for tackling generational challenges; that is important, and I am sure the right hon. Lady will want to contribute to the Government’s work in that respect.

I will come back to a couple of other points should time permit, including about positive action provisions, which relate to the right hon. Lady’s own Government’s guidance. The positive action provisions in the Act allow limited exceptions to the general position that one group should not be treated better or worse than another. Lawful positive action is always voluntary and must relate to one or more of three conditions: addressing a disadvantage associated with a protected characteristic; providing for a protected characteristic group’s specific needs; or tackling disproportionately low participation by a group. The previous guidance, published in 2023, makes it clear that that is very different from positive discrimination. The right hon. Lady knows that mandatory quotas to recruit or promote people from a particular group irrespective of merit would be unlawful.

I want to make some points about the progress we have seen under the Equality Act and equality legislation, from ending child labour through to votes for women and the Race Relations Act—Labour’s first equality legislation around 60 years ago. Social progress often means that what was once controversial becomes a new normal—a new baseline. Indeed, legislation can change culture, just as culture can change legislation. I am proud that we are in what I hope is a more equal society—one that is more tolerant and believes in respect for each other—compared with the environment that my parents found when they first came to Britain to work, to contribute and to be in business. My mum was a teacher. What they experienced was dramatically changed by the legislation that was brought in, and that gave me opportunities. I remember being spat at when I walked down the street in Feltham and other places, but we are now in an environment where everyone should be able to grow up proud of who they are and able to play their part equally in British society.

Our landmark legislation was a triumph for how the whole nation, including business and unions, came together. I am incredibly proud that we have seen progress, from the implementation of the minimum wage to scrapping section 28 and bringing in same-sex marriage. If we were to scrap all our equality legislation, we might want to answer the questions that would be raised by Members of Parliament who are in same-sex relationships and who have married their partners. I could draw on the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) and others. If we rolled back all our equality legislation, what would we be saying to them about how they have been able to come together, marry their loved ones and live their life in Britain, just as we should allow anybody to marry the person they love?

A handful of people in this House would like to take us backwards, to a time before our values were underscored in law and before fairness was put at the heart of our legal framework, but I believe it is important to be proud of the rights we are afforded by the Equality Act. I am a little unsure of the time I have remaining.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

You can enjoy a little more time.

[Seema Malhotra]

I have a few additional remarks. Our Equality Act had a number of objectives: first, to bring together myriad pieces of primary and secondary legislation that had built up, so that we could have one clear, coherent framework that the British people could feel confident in; secondly, to modernise some of the language and concepts used, to make them clearer and more accessible, such as the fact that discrimination linked to breastfeeding is sex discrimination; and thirdly, to strengthen the law by, for example, introducing protection from discrimination by association across various protected characteristics. ACAS guidance gives as an example of the latter a parent being unfairly dismissed from work because of time taken off at short notice to care for their disabled child.

It is important to recognise the progress we have made and where we want to go further. Building on the success of gender pay gap reporting, we committed in our manifesto to introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers, and to make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people. The hon. Member for Romford might be interested to know that we have been working on that with business, and that many large businesses already follow such practice. We had a consultation and call for evidence, which we are looking at before coming back to the House. Leaders of successful international businesses have told me that more transparency and awareness enables a shift to a more inclusive culture, raising awareness and improving transparency. It also improves staff morale and satisfaction, respect for others and their backgrounds, and understanding—all things that I believe the hon. Member would be keen to see for his constituents and for others across the country.

Let me address some of the other points made in the debate, starting with addressing head-on the point about the definition of Islamophobia and the ongoing working group. Members will have heard it said in Parliament before that, should the Government accept the recommendations of the working group, the definition used will be non-statutory. It will enable the Government and other relevant bodies to have a greater understanding of the unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities.

We have seen a massive rise in hate crime against the Muslim and Jewish communities, which accounts for about 71% of hate crime in the past year. As the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) knows, the working group’s proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of belief and expression, which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherence. We fundamentally believe in freedom of speech but we do not believe in hate. It is important to have a legal framework that supports people’s rights to have their own freedom of religion and belief, without fear of what could happen to them.

We see our work on equality and tackling barriers to opportunity as being at the heart of how we support positive and inclusive growth for our economy and communities. The strong equalities framework drafted by the previous Labour Administration, further enhanced by the commitments of this Government, is ultimately about fairness for all, and will see us boost productivity and household income, getting more money in people’s pockets and raising living standards for all as we deliver the next phase in our programme of government renewal.

Let me come back on the comment about rainbows on roads and pavements. I remember that during the pandemic rainbows were everywhere, for what they symbolise in so many ways, including a commitment to equality. Perhaps the issue of road repairs is less about rainbows drawn on pavements and roads and much more about the cuts made under the previous Government. My local authority saw a 60% cut in income in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government. That had a massive impact on how we were able to renew and maintain infrastructure in our community. The hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) should know that dealing with roads and potholes is a priority not just for central Government but for my local government in Hounslow.

In conclusion, I want to be clear that the Government are very proud of the Equality Act 2010 and remain committed to improving equality and fairness for all through our Employment Rights Bill and other legislation. I look forward to seeing that come forward in our legislative programme.

10:44

[Andrew Rosindell]

Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for chairing today’s debate, which has been extremely valuable. We have heard excellent contributions. There have been different opinions, but we have debated this issue in a respectful way. There are issues to be addressed, and all Members who spoke today have made extremely valid points, coming from different angles. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for his remarks. I took on board the point he made about caste discrimination, which is rarely spoken about. I thank him for drawing that to our attention.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes incredibly valid points in all the debates in which he speaks. He made the point that we may have differences—we all do, as we are all individuals; none of us are the same—but we have to live side by side, and legislation should empower the British people to live side by side in a free society, not pit them against one another and accentuate division by emphasising differences between us. We should be united as British people, rather than looking at how we can be more divided and act like we are victims. Too many in our society today are doing that because the Equality Act has created that culture.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made extremely powerful comments, and I agree with everything she said, particularly about the public sector—especially local government—and how diversity culture has taken over, wasting so much money, causing so many divisions and ignoring issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made the point about focusing on what matters to real people in the real world, rather than looking inwards. Let us focus on providing good, efficient public services rather than draining resources with the diversity agenda.

I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). They also made extremely valid points, particularly about the division of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, which I have always opposed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey got absolutely to the point of where this has all gone wrong. All of us want to see people treated fairly and decently in a society in which freedom is cherished, but it does not all have to be legislated for. Often things evolve; society changes in a natural way. If we try to legislate for everything, that is just a gift to the lawyers, judges and consultants, and all the people who will monetise legislation that gives them the opportunity to.

I have always respected the Minister, and she spoke brilliantly today. She made points that I did not agree with, but many that I did agree with. I think we have all been subjected to hateful language—as Members of Parliament, we get that probably more than most people—and hatred is wrong in any context. We should always treat people with respect, kindness and generosity, but at the same time prevent those with bad intentions from causing more divisions, so our legislation needs to be minimal rather than opening up more opportunities for division in society.

Ultimately, I believe in freedom—freedom with responsibility. I do not believe that diversity is always the right answer. It can cause division, and I think equality can sometimes be the opposite of freedom, so let us get back to basics. Let us be proud of our British heritage, which has always been based on fairness and equality under the law of these islands.

I thank all Members for participating in this important debate and I say to those who have not had the chance: please get a copy of the Don’t Divide Us report, because it explains a lot of things that we as Members of Parliament should be addressing today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.

10:49

Sitting suspended.