The Equality Act 2010

by

What is the Equality Act 2010?

The Equality Act 2010 is an Act of Parliament passed in the UK during the Brown government. It brought together, consolidated, updated, and supplemented the many other acts and regulations that formed the basis of UK anti discrimination laws. It affects England, Scotland and Wales and some sections of Northern Ireland.      

The act should, and was designed to, protect individuals against discrimination, harassment and victimisation in employment and public services, including political parties. 

There are nine protected characteristics, (and here you need to be careful as there are organisations wanting to change the characteristics and who actually act as if they have changed, spreading incorrect information) 

The characteristics are:

The fact political parties are bound by this act has proved difficult for some in the Green Party to understand. 

The law

However, whatever the misunderstanding, the relationship between the Green Party and its members is actually governed by the law of contract as well as by various statutes, including the Equality Act 2010, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as implemented by the Human Rights Act 1998 and common law.

Protected philosophical beliefs

As an unincorporated association, the Green Party has duties under section 101 of the Equality Act (EA), which provides (inter alia) that the Party may not discriminate against a member by depriving them of membership, or varying the terms thereof, or by subjecting that member to any other detriment by virtue of a protected characteristic such as philosophical belief.

The Equality Act protects what are described as “Gender Critical beliefs” as philosophical beliefs; the Maya Forstater court case established this.

This means people should accept that others have different views to them, even if they may find those views objectionable, and that those views are protected.

Some in GPEW have really struggled with this, expecting other members to think and believe the same as them, sometimes labelling those they disagree with as “transphobes” if the disagreement is about sex v gender. They have been more careful about name-calling more recently but it still happens, now using indirect language rather than direct. 

Those that do understand the protection of Gender Critical views have been warning over the years that people need to recognise Gender Critical beliefs are protected under the EA, or “prepare to be sued” (Irwin Mitchell). This has already happened in GPEW and there are other cases pending. 

Bates Wells, the solicitors that represented the GP in the Shahrar Ali court case, were clear afterwards that:

“it’s now beyond dispute those with GC beliefs enjoy protection under the Act” and “The principles established in this judgement mean that political parties remain free to debate these and other issues even in terms which might be considered offensive, if this debate rubs up against protected beliefs – so be it.”

The organisation Sex Matters produced a fairly critical verdict on the recent Green Party Manifesto for the general election. They described the Manifesto as “human rights: not for women”. They described Green Party pledges as disregarding the Equality Act’s protected characteristics, and assert that GPEW policies on sex/gender focus only on the interests of the minority of people who identify as transgender or non-binary, overlooking the human rights of everyone else, particularly women. Many women would agree. 

Single sex services

One of the big “disputes” around the Equality Act, which certainly rages in the Green Party, is whether or not it protects single sex services. 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission provide ongoing guidance around and about the Act. In April 2022 they provided guidance about the provision of single sex services in which they state that the Act does protect single sex spaces where the “restrictions are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

The above link gives detailed explanations of how to legally provide single sex services and gives several examples:

e.g. The service is likely to be used by more than one person at the same time and a woman might object to the presence of a man, or vice versa, referring to changing rooms, which were in the news a while ago when women were assaulted by males in changing rooms that were mixed sex. 

The guidance stresses in all examples you must show that providing single sex services is proportionate to achieving the aim. A legitimate aim can be “privacy and dignity”. It says it’s good practice to provide evidence and suggests e.g. a patient survey to show patients do not want mixed sex wards. How easy this is when hospitals are understaffed is unclear. 

The need to provide evidence such as a survey is perhaps the reason why some services cave in to activists and don’t provide single sex services. Some still believe, after receiving incorrect advice, that they can’t, others may balk at the need to provide paperwork evidence, and may worry about court action against them. Not all have access to good legal advice on these matters. 

The Equality Act 2010 is generally straightforward, but it’s clear many women feel it fails to protect their interests, despite the “gender critical“ wins it has enabled over recent years, probably most famously the Maya Forstater case. Maya’s landmark judgment has paved the way for others; its significance can’t be underestimated. The judgment, in 2021, was that her gender critical beliefs are a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. 

Despite all this there is still a need to be vigilant to ensure the Act is not amended in ways that would remove protection for women.

The European Convention on Human Rights

The right to freedom of expression is also protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that includes the liberty to express Gender Critical (GC) beliefs, as was affirmed in Higgs v Farmor’s School [2023] ICR 1072, which also recognised that manifestation of GC beliefs engages Article 9 rights to freedom of conscience.