Kemi Badenoch has set out one of the clearest policy dividing lines of her leadership, pledging that a future Conservative government would scrap the Public Sector Equality Duty.
The duty, introduced through the Equality Act 2010, requires public bodies to consider how their decisions affect people with protected characteristics, including age, disability, race, sex, pregnancy, and sexual orientation. It applies across schools, hospitals, councils, police forces and other public authorities.
For Badenoch, the duty has become a symbol of what she argues is wrong with the modern state. In her speech at the Institute of Government, she claimed that public bodies have “spent so long worrying about institutional racism that they have become institutionally incompetent”. Her argument is that equality law has drifted from protecting individuals against discrimination into encouraging public institutions to treat groups differently.
The phrase that will likely define the speech was her claim that equality law should be “a shield, not a sword”. It was a direct attempt to draw a distinction between anti-discrimination protections, which she says should remain, and public sector processes she believes have become bureaucratic, divisive and counterproductive.
Scrapping the Public Sector Equality Duty
The Conservatives are presenting the policy as part of a wider programme to “restore common sense” in public life. Badenoch argued that the Public Sector Equality Duty should not be replaced with a new mechanism, but removed altogether.
That position has drawn a lot of attention. The duty is not a small administrative rule, it is a long-standing principal that has acted as a foundation for how government acts with service users. It is one of the main ways public authorities are expected to show they have thought about equality when making decisions. Supporters argue that it helps prevent disadvantage from being overlooked, particularly in areas such as disability, maternity, race, secuality, and access to services.
Badenoch’s criticism is that the duty has encouraged the wrong kind of decision making. She says it has led institutions to focus on process, categories and perceived group interests rather than fairness, competence, and equal treatment under the law.
Her opponents have moved quickly to challenge that framing. Labour has argued that removing the duty would weaken protections for women, disabled people and older workers. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has defended the purpose of the duty, saying it helps public authorities make better decisions.
The Reform and Labour pressure
The speech also shows how much pressure Badenoch is under in trying to demonstrate that anyone is listening. Reform UK has pushed harder on the issue, arguing that the Conservatives are still not going far enough. Labour, meanwhile, is strengthening its own emphasis on socio-economic background, including within the civil service.
Badenoch’s answer is to try to occupy a half way house. She is not calling for the whole Equality Act to be scrapped, but she is arguing that the public sector duty has warped the law’s purpose. She believes this will give the Conservatives a sharper message than they have had on equality policy for some time.
The risk is that the argument becomes trapped in culture war territory. Many voters are frustrated by bureaucracy in public services, but they will also want reassurance that removing the duty would not weaken protection against discrimination.
A Test of Seriousness
Badenoch’s speech will appeal to Conservatives who want the party to challenge what they see as institutional overreach and identity-based decision making. It also gives her leadership a firmer ideological shape.
But the policy now needs detail. Which obligations would disappear? How would public bodies be expected to prove fairness in decision making? What safeguards would remain for groups who already struggle to be heard? Several of these questions were asked of Shadow Equalities Minister, Claire Coutinho on the media round this morning, but answers were batted off with further promises of reviews and internal policy discussions.
Those questions matter because the Conservatives cannot simply argue that the current system is flawed. They need to show that their alternative would improve public services, strengthen public trust and preserve the principle of equal treatment.
Badenoch has chosen equality law as a major battleground. Whether that becomes a serious governing agenda or another front in Britain’s culture wars will depend on what comes next.
You can still get a copy of our new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.
Photo Credit: UK Government