Equality Act 2010: Children from Disadvantaged Backgrounds

Debate between Ben Bradley and Steve Double

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered ensuring that the Equality Act 2010 protects children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I raise this matter today because, in truth, I am not convinced that it does. In fact, my view is that the misapplication and misinterpretation of the Equality Act 2010 has led to the exclusion of some of our country’s poorest people. Whether by flaw of design or subsequent false interpretation, the Act does not deliver what was intended. That is not something we should shy away from just because it is difficult or because it cuts against the popular narrative on diversity. It is important. If we listened to that narrative—the one that holds sway in the media and on Twitter—we would be forgiven for believing that protected characteristics in the Act are things such as black, Asian and minority ethnic, female, or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. That is how usually it is put across, even by our institutions, by businesses and even by Government Ministers and Departments on the odd occasion. In truth, that is not correct. The characteristics listed, in fact, are race, sex, sexuality, among others. In fact, a white heterosexual male has just as much protection under the Act as a black, gay female. It is equal, hence the name.

Sometimes it seems like nobody knows this. It is actually quite mad. Rather than the Equality Act 2010 existing to prevent discrimination, an awful lot of people in influential positions—even in our national institutions—seem to be under the impression that the Act and its provisions on positive action give them the right to actively discriminate in favour of certain groups. Discrimination on the basis of those characteristics is, of course, illegal, whether it has “positive” as a prefix or not, but it seems commonplace. For example, there are countless scholarships and bursaries for higher levels of study offered only to BAME students. That is not positive action, I am afraid; that is discrimination. There is a difference. Encouraging under-represented BAME students to apply for scholarships, yes; excluding all white students from a scholarship on the basis of their race should be a no. That is the very definition of discrimination, and it is even worse when, without the lens of identity politics, it is actually the disadvantaged white children who struggle most to access higher education, not BAME children. That positive discrimination favours a group that already does better statistically, and at the expense of the most under-represented. But as I have said, that is commonplace. The Act, or at least its interpretation and implementation, is fundamentally flawed.

According to research by the writer and commentator Douglas Murray, the Act has, in the main, tended to support and promote those who are already closest to their destination, rather than digging down into supporting those in genuine need, perhaps due to the lack of provision around socioeconomic circumstances. There is a socioeconomic duty in the Act, in section 1, which puts a duty on public bodies to exercise their duties in a way that is designed to reduce socioeconomic inequalities. However, that section has never been enacted. I am not a legal expert and I am sure there is a reason for that: perhaps some unintended consequences that would occur if it were enacted, or perhaps a perception that it is unnecessary—a public body should already be doing that. I know that is not directly in the Minister’s brief but, following the debate, can she ask the Equalities Minister to write to me on the issue?

It seems clear that socioeconomic status or social class is, in fact, the greatest indicator of life chances, but that is not a protected characteristic nor is it enacted in section 1. I am sure that there is a reason.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and a very good case, not just on the specific points he has mentioned, but on the wider principle of making sure that the Equality Act actually works. I wish to add to his list the issue of geographical disadvantage. Often, where a person is born in this country—not just the family they are born into but the geographical disadvantages—is a key factor that very often gets overlooked and does not get addressed.

[Ben Bradley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A person’s access to services, for example, can be limited or decided by where they are lucky enough to be born. A key point I am making throughout this speech is that those differences in equality of opportunity exist outside of the protected characteristics enshrined in the Act and that there are other reasons people might not have that same opportunity that we should be addressing.

A lack of provision around socioeconomic equality in the Act and the perverse consequences of the misinterpretation of protected characteristics and positive action means that it can often seem like every other group in society has support and is protected by the Act apart from the most disadvantaged white children, and white boys and men in particular. Recently, UCAS statistics showed that only 9% of white boys on free school meals go to university. The second lowest was white girls on free school meals at 14%. White boys from disadvantaged backgrounds are most likely to drop out of school with no qualifications and have the lowest rate of achieving GCSEs, followed by disadvantaged white girls. In contrast, black or Asian girls have the highest chances of going to university. If those statistics were reversed, I guarantee that there would be an uproar. In BAME groups too, boys tend to do worse than girls.

Rates of grammar school entry is another area in which results differ based on ethnic background. Disadvantaged white British children enter grammar school at the lowest rate of any major ethnic group. Disadvantaged Indian pupils are four times more likely to attend, and Chinese pupils are 15 times more likely. Again, across all races and ethnicities, boys are lower in the rankings than girls.

In education at least, the constant false interpretation of the Act, which promotes positive action for BAME and female pupils, seems entirely backwards. Disadvantaged white boys are statistically faring the worst. They are under-represented at universities and in our public institutions, and their life chances are most limited because they are most likely to have no qualifications.

The popular narrative of white privilege is regularly wheeled out, and it is assumed that those poorest white children do not face discrimination on that basis, but in fact they do. If we step outside the Twitter bubble, we are faced with the stark reality that, through that kind of rhetoric, our society is ignoring what is statistically one of its most vulnerable demographics. As it happens, those lads are more likely than anyone to chuck themselves under a train, and that is not a coincidence.

It could be argued, if one were so inclined, that the Act, or at least the unfettered misapplication of it, has played a part in exacerbating this problem. I have long argued that identity politics is divisive and unhelpful, and the Act enshrines it in our law. It does not recognise the individual needs of the most disadvantaged people, and it actively supports the advancement of others through so-called positive action based not on their actual individual needs or disadvantage, and not on any actual discrimination or barriers they face as individuals, but on the basis of broad assumptions based on their physical characteristics.

The identity politics—the lumping of people into boxes, rather than considering their individual circumstances—that is enshrined in the Act is deeply troubling. We have seen it manifest itself in other ways that have become part of the popular narrative recently. But it is surely the case that privilege or hardship are not based on which of these characteristic boxes a person ticks but are down to their wider individual circumstances—things such as socioeconomic background or geography, which my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) mentioned. Socioeconomic status and social class are more indicative of a person’s life chances than their physical characteristics. Physical characteristics play a part, of course. Discrimination, racism, misogyny and homophobia exist, but they are one part of a more complex picture—one segment of an individual’s life experience and opportunity. We should help people based on their actual needs, not on guesswork based on flawed metrics. The interpretation and implementation of the Act is deeply flawed.

I am fed up to the back teeth with identity politics. I do not want to be stood here saying, “White kids this,” and, “White kids that.” I value all kids and their futures, and the support they get should be based on what they need, not on the colour of their skin, their gender or any other grand narrative that we concoct to make ourselves feel better. Separating black and white, gay and straight, male and female in that way is combative and unhelpful, but it sometimes feels like I have to highlight white disadvantaged kids and their plight, because otherwise they do not seem to get a look in.

If we talk generally about disadvantage, the system and our legislation—this misinterpretation of the Equality Act—always seem to bring the discussion back around to the BAME, female and other misinterpretations that we have enshrined in law. If we do not say “white kids”, the popular narrative and the system seem to leave them behind—and have done so in many cases—in favour of a fundamentally flawed diversity agenda, which is hugely frustrating and, in many ways, wrong.

In closing, I want to ask the Minister some questions. I do not know the answers, and I do not expect her to know the answers, but I hope they will be taken away for consideration. As an Education Minister, she will no doubt have some remarks about the points I have made about education, which I would welcome. The Secretary of State has been clear about his wish to support more disadvantaged white working-class boys into university, for example, if that is their aspiration, and that is very welcome.

I have some questions about the Equality Act itself, and I wonder whether the Minister can take them away and perhaps raise them with colleagues in the Government Equalities Office. First, why has the socioeconomic provision within the Act not been enacted? If it is flawed or inappropriate in its detail, how can we fix it? What protections can the Act offer to those who face barriers and discrimination based on being poor, being in care or other hardships that are not recognised in this law? Secondly, if the answer is “none”, will the Government look closely at the implications of that section of the Act and seek to amend it in a way that offers such support?

Thirdly, will the Government review the implications of amending the Act to remove or change any damaging positive action elements that go way beyond preventing discrimination and, due to the constant misinterpretation of those who claim ownership of it, appear in practice to condone positive discrimination to the exclusion of some of our country’s poorest people?

Finally, at the very least, the Government should consider clearly restating the actual aims and nature of the provisions of the Act, laying out the reality, challenging the false rhetoric around it and requiring their own officers and institutions to implement it in a fair and balanced way. There are fundamental flaws in the way the Act is implemented, whether owing to poor design or poor interpretation. Left unchallenged, that has made things worse for some of the most vulnerable children in our society. This narrative has led, for example, to fee-paying schools rejecting charitable support for disadvantaged children based on their race, and we have heard in recent weeks that it has led to racial segregation in UK businesses, such as Sainsbury’s. It is unhealthy and a backward step. Something needs to change.