Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

Claire Coutinho Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

[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.