Show the Working

Replace the 2010 Equalities Act and scrap DE&I rules

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Replace the 2010 Equalities Act and scrap DE&I rules” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Personal liberty & free speech — Helps

minor · low confidence

Scrapping DE&I mandates and the Public Sector Equality Duty removes state-imposed compliance obligations on employers and public bodies, which under this outcome's criteria counts as withdrawing state coercion. The main caveat is that the proposed replacement Act is almost entirely undefined, so the net liberty effect is highly uncertain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: What the replacement 'Workplace Fairness Act' actually contains — if it introduces its own mandates or enforcement mechanisms, the O10 improvement could be partially or fully reversed.

Our reading: O10 scores policies by their effect on freedom from state coercion, mandates, and compulsory obligations — not by whether private actors might subsequently discriminate more freely (that harm lands primarily on O9). Judged on this axis, the policy clearly moves in an O10-improving direction: the PSED imposes positive legal obligations on public authorities in how they make decisions, and DE&I rules impose compliance requirements on employers. Withdrawing these obligations reduces state-directed mandates. One credible voice (Women's Policy Centre, an advocacy source — flagged accordingly) also argues the Act has been used to suppress speech, suggesting a secondary speech-freedom gain, but this rests on an advocacy source and cannot bear the main weight of the verdict. The magnitude is held to minor rather than moderate for two reasons. First, the replacement 'Workplace Fairness Act' has almost no published detail, meaning any new mandates it introduces could offset the liberty gain — the net position is genuinely unknown. Second, a significant share of what the Equality Act does is define individual legal rights that people can choose to exercise or not, rather than impose ongoing mandates; removing those rights is scored under O9, not O10. The confidence is low because the decisive parameter — what the replacement legislation contains — is unresolved by the evidence provided. If the replacement imposes equivalent or new mandates, the O10 improvement largely dissolves.

Prosperity & living standards — Hurts

moderate · low confidence

Scrapping anti-discrimination law would likely reduce labour-market participation and opportunity for large groups of workers, harming aggregate living standards and productivity — but the size of the effect is uncertain because the best-evidenced estimates come from advocacy sources. The policy's own claim that DE&I rules hurt productivity is asserted, not evidenced.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether a replacement 'Workplace Fairness Act' would preserve meaningful labour-market protections or strip them, and what independent evidence exists on productivity effects of the current Act — neither is resolved by the provided evidence.

Our reading: For O13 — prosperity and living standards broadly — the key question is whether removing the Equality Act and DE&I requirements would raise or lower aggregate productivity, opportunity, and real living standards. The policy's core productivity claim — that the Act lowers standards and hurts economic output — appears only in Reform UK's own framing (M, E31) and is not backed by any independent institutional or academic source in the provided evidence. Under the soft-verb and mechanism-plausibility rules, an asserted but unevidenced productivity gain cannot earn 'improves'. On the other side, the institutional evidence (Resolution Foundation, E25) links tackling structural inequality to boosting living standards. The Act's legal framework underpins labour-market participation by women, disabled people, and ethnic minorities — groups whose exclusion from work reduces aggregate productivity. Quantified estimates of those gains (E23, E24) come from advocacy/commercial sources (uk-cpi.com, bitc.org.uk) and must be downweighted; they cannot anchor magnitude. However, the directional claim — that removing protections reduces participation and opportunity — is consistent with the institutional source and with the measurable baseline that 'positive action' is not unlawful quota-setting (E35), which undermines the policy's framing. The replacement 'Workplace Fairness Act' (E2) could in principle preserve meaningful protections, but it has no specified content — so no counterfactual offset can be credited. The net verdict is 'worsens/moderate' on a long-term horizon: reduced labour-market participation and opportunity for large groups of workers plausibly depresses productivity and living standards, the policy's productivity-gain claim is unsupported, and the replacement mechanism is unspecified. Confidence is 'low' because the magnitude estimates rest on advocacy sources, and a well-designed replacement could shift the verdict substantially.

Inequality & fair shares — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

Removing the Equality Act's anti-discrimination protections would likely widen income and employment gaps for groups — women, ethnic minorities, disabled people — who are already at the bottom of the earnings distribution. The main uncertainty is what the replacement 'Workplace Fairness Act' would actually contain, which is currently undefined.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: The stated replacement 'Workplace Fairness Act' has no published detail, so it is unknown whether it would preserve any redistributive protections that narrow group-level income gaps.

Our reading: O14 asks whether the gap between the richest and the rest widens or narrows. The distributional question here turns on which groups bear the costs of removing anti-discrimination law. The Equality Act currently prohibits pay discrimination, mandates reasonable adjustments for disabled workers, and imposes a Public Sector Equality Duty. These instruments operate directly on the income gap: they constrain employers from paying or promoting along demographic lines that correlate with being lower in the income distribution. Women, ethnic minorities, and disabled people are disproportionately represented at lower earnings levels — a point the Resolution Foundation (institutional source, E25, E29) grounds in evidence on structural inequality. Removing these protections has a clear directional effect on the gap: groups at the bottom lose legal recourse against practices that hold their incomes down, while those at the top (who face fewer structural barriers) are unaffected or marginally advantaged by reduced compliance costs. That is a gap-widening mechanism. The replacement 'Workplace Fairness Act' (E2) has no published detail. If it preserved equivalent substantive protections, the verdict could shift — but the policy as stated offers no evidence it would. The IEA (advocacy, E34) supports removing the PSED on meritocracy grounds; this has been noted but, as an advocacy source, cannot carry the verdict. The claim that 'positive action' equals 'positive discrimination' is contested by E9 and E35, which establish the two are legally distinct under current law. Most negative-impact estimates (E13, E17, E20) come from advocacy or media sources, which I have down-weighted. The verdict rests primarily on the Resolution Foundation's institutional findings on structural inequality (E25, E29) and the direct legal mechanism: removing enforceable anti-discrimination protections at scale across all employment and public services. That mechanism is sufficient to conclude the policy worsens O14 at moderate magnitude, with moderate confidence given the absence of detail on the replacement legislation.

Good work & fair pay — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

Scrapping the Equality Act would remove legal protections that stop employers from paying women less, refusing jobs to ethnic minorities, or dismissing pregnant workers — making work less fair and secure for large groups of people. The replacement 'Workplace Fairness Act' has no published detail, so it is unknown whether it would restore any of these protections.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the proposed 'Workplace Fairness Act' replacement would preserve, weaken, or strengthen workplace protections — its specific details are currently unavailable.

Our reading: The Equality Act 2010 is the primary legal instrument protecting workers from discrimination in pay, hiring, dismissal, and conditions across all nine protected characteristics. Removing it without a detailed replacement eliminates these enforceable protections in employment. For O4 — decent, secure work and fair pay — this is directly relevant: workers can currently challenge unequal pay, discriminatory dismissal, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The measurable baseline is clear: the Act prohibits direct and indirect discrimination including against pregnant women and disabled workers. The projected harms are largely one-directional in the evidence: up to half a million pregnant women annually could lose protections; disabled workers may quietly exit employment; ethnic minorities and women could face legal pay discrimination. The economic cost evidence (£127bn estimated cost of workplace discrimination) suggests that weakening protections is more likely to increase than reduce inequality and in-work poverty. Reform UK's own argument — that the Act reduces productivity — is asserted but no independent evidence in the provided units supports this claim, and the policy's own stated characterisation of 'positive action' as discrimination conflicts with the measurable legal baseline showing positive action and positive discrimination are legally distinct. The one genuine uncertainty is the replacement 'Workplace Fairness Act,' which could in principle preserve some protections. However, no details are provided, so this cannot be weighted against the certain removal of the current framework. On balance, the evidence leans clearly toward worsened job security and fairness, particularly for women, disabled people, and ethnic minorities — groups already at higher risk of in-work poverty.

Equal treatment & democratic rights — Hurts

major · moderate confidence

Replacing the Equality Act would remove the single legal framework that protects everyone in the UK from discrimination across employment, education, and public services. No concrete replacement has been specified, leaving a gap in anti-discrimination law that would most affect already-disadvantaged groups.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the proposed 'Workplace Fairness Act' replacement would preserve equivalent or stronger protections — but its details are currently too vague to assess.

Our reading: O9 is anchored on anti-discrimination protections, minority protections, and due process. The Equality Act 2010 is the foundational statute for all three: it consolidates over 100 prior pieces of legislation into a single enforceable framework covering nine protected characteristics across employment, services, and public life. Removing it without a like-for-like replacement would directly reduce those protections for every person in the UK. The policy's stated rationale — that 'positive action' equals discrimination — is factually contested: the Act itself prohibits quotas, and positive action provisions allow only proportionate steps to address disadvantage. The proposed replacement ('Workplace Fairness Act') is too vague to evaluate as an equivalent, so there is no evidential basis for treating it as maintaining current protections. The PSED removal is a further concrete reduction: it eliminates the legal duty on public authorities — councils, schools, hospitals — to actively promote equality, weakening institutional accountability for equal treatment in the delivery of public services. Some critics (e.g. IEA, Women's Policy Centre — both advocacy sources, flagged accordingly) argue that parts of the Act have been misapplied, and that reform of specific provisions could be justified; this is a legitimate debate about the Act's scope. However, total repeal with no detailed replacement is a different proposition, and the evidence base (including parliamentary library sources) supports the conclusion that aggregate anti-discrimination legal protections would fall materially in the near term. Magnitude is major because the Act is the entire statutory floor for equal-treatment rights. Confidence is moderate rather than high because the replacement's content is genuinely unknown and could, in principle, preserve significant protections.

Compare all parties on personal liberty & free speech →Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Compare all parties on equal treatment & democratic rights →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home