Kemi Badenoch is expected to reveal the Conservative party’s new approach to equality law in a speech today. Most prominent will be an announcement that the Conservatives will scrap the public sector equality duty (PSED). This is designed to ensure that when making decisions, public bodies consider the need to eliminate discrimination; advance equality of opportunity; and ‘foster good relations’ between people who have protected characteristics and people who do not.
Critics have argued that the PSED has promoted divisive agendas. Badenoch is expected to say that it has ‘become a minefield that exposes almost every significant public decision to legal challenge’.
Unlike Reform UK, which is vowing to replace the Equality Act entirely, it appears that Badenoch is instead promising targeted reforms. This is a wise approach. The 2010 Act also merged a number of previous anti-discrimination laws on equal pay and race, sex and disability discrimination. Some of these laws dated back to the 1970s and it is hard to imagine a modern party wishing to head into an election in the face of claims that it wished to allow a return to discrimination against pregnant women or ethnic minorities.
Instead, it appears that the Conservatives are taking aim at some of the more contentious parts of the legislation that has allowed diversity, equality and inclusion schemes to proliferate. While supporters argue that such initiatives are necessary to tackle persistent inequalities, critics contend that they have often expanded far beyond the original purpose of anti-discrimination law and have become an exercise in ideological box-ticking.
The removal of identity politics from public life may well sound like a positive step
My own experience in the public sector tends to support the latter view. There was an unfortunate focus on intersectionality, ‘white privilege’ and mandatory inclusion and diversity objectives for leaders and managers in parliament. At interviews, people were expected to make presentations on these issues. As a mixed-race person myself, I slowly came to resent the consultants and trainers who forced my colleagues to examine their ‘privilege’. Few focused on working-class individuals who had succeeded against the odds. Instead, officials were expected to apologise for the large Oxbridge intake that could be found in the senior levels of parliament.
I can only imagine the impact on recruitment. It is quite hard to imagine a Reform voter being particularly welcome in the public sector these days, particularly since critics of DEI initiatives are often portrayed as opposing equality itself.
Yet, in entering this arena, Badenoch will also face some challenges. While her focus will reportedly be on the abolition of the PSED, questions will no doubt be raised about other contentious aspects of the Equality Act. Notable issues include the approach that will be taken towards single-sex spaces and services after the For Women Scotland judgment in the Supreme Court.
Following the publication of EHRC guidance in May, this has become somewhat of a political hot potato for Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Some public authorities seem resistant to implementing both the law and the guidance. The recent (and regrettable) decision by the City of London to remain ‘trans inclusive’ at its three historic bathing ponds on Hampstead Heath highlights the fact that some public authorities simply do not value single-sex space. It is to be hoped that Badenoch will use the opportunity to re-affirm her support for the rights of biological women.
A further issue which has caused difficulties is the operation of the ‘equal value’ provisions of the Act. These provisions allow workers to claim equal pay for fundamentally different jobs that (allegedly) require similar levels of skill, effort, and responsibility, regardless of market demands.
They were brought in with good intentions to ensure that women were not underpaid for work of equal value. However, these provisions have been used to argue that dinner ladies should be paid the same as bin men and that shop floor staff should receive the same pay as warehouse workers. Equal pay liabilities were a major factor contributing to Birmingham City Council’s financial crisis and also led to huge claims against companies like Next and Asda. Reform in this area may be necessary if Badenoch is to address this problem.
A focus on core delivery and the removal of identity politics from public life may well sound like a positive step. Badenoch has experience in this area, having acted as equalities minister in the last Conservative government. Moreover, there is likely to be at least some opportunity for savings (although these should not be exaggerated, as Reform is discovering to its cost in the councils that it is now running).
Badenoch has made a good start by highlighting the fact that the Conservatives have a distinct policy from both Labour (which seems fixated with extending DEI schemes) and Reform (which seems dedicated to replacing the Equality Act in its entirety).
Yet one should not imagine that this will be an easy task. Over the last decade, almost every public service leader will have been expected to make a commitment to DEI and meet targets in this area. This will have had a significant impact on who was recruited and their approach to the job. Both the Johnson and Sunak administrations had every opportunity to seek to alter this trajectory, yet neither made any real inroads.
The next election is likely to feature a significant debate about the balance between equality initiatives, merit-based advancement, and economic growth. Whether Badenoch’s proposals can shift that debate remains to be seen.
Comments