Kemi Badenoch is preparing to spark a major political battle over equality laws by pledging to scrap the Public Sector Equality Duty, arguing that public bodies should focus on treating everyone the same rather than dividing people by identity.
The Conservative leader is expected to use a major speech to claim that years of “identity politics” have damaged public services and weakened public trust. Her argument is that institutions such as the police, councils, schools and parts of the NHS have become too focused on box-ticking exercises and group-based policies, instead of delivering clear, fair and effective services for everyone.
At the centre of the row is the Public Sector Equality Duty, part of the Equality Act 2010. It requires public bodies to consider how their decisions affect people with protected characteristics, including race, sex, disability, religion, age and pregnancy. Supporters say it helps prevent discrimination and ensures public services take fairness seriously. Badenoch, however, argues that the duty has been stretched too far and has encouraged a culture in which officials are pressured to view people primarily through the lens of race, gender or identity.
Her intervention comes during a particularly sensitive moment, following renewed anger over the Henry Nowak case. Henry, an 18-year-old student, died after being stabbed in Southampton. Public outrage intensified after reports about how police treated him in his final moments, including claims that he was handcuffed while badly injured. The case has raised difficult questions about policing, judgment, public confidence and whether officers are being given clear enough guidance in fast-moving situations.
Badenoch has linked the wider debate to what she sees as a deeper problem inside public institutions. She argues that the public sector should return to a simple principle: one law for everyone, applied without fear or favour. In her view, equality rules should protect people from discrimination, not encourage officials to make decisions based on identity categories.
The proposal is likely to win support from voters who believe public services have become too cautious, politicised or divided by culture-war arguments. For them, Badenoch’s message will sound like a promise to restore common sense and equal treatment.
But critics are already warning that scrapping the duty could weaken important protections. They argue that the rules exist because discrimination does happen and because public bodies need a legal responsibility to consider how their decisions affect different groups. Campaigners also fear the move could make it harder to challenge unfair treatment in areas such as policing, employment, healthcare and education.
Labour is expected to strongly oppose Badenoch’s plan, framing it as an attack on protections that help vulnerable people and minority communities. Reform UK, meanwhile, has pushed for even more radical changes, creating pressure on the Conservatives to prove they can confront voter frustration without going as far as Nigel Farage’s party.
That political pressure is part of why Badenoch’s speech matters. She is trying to position herself as a leader willing to challenge what she calls divisive ideology, while also presenting the Conservatives as serious about fairness and public service reform.
The risk, however, is that the debate becomes even more polarised. Race, policing, equality law and public trust are among the most sensitive issues in British politics. Any proposal to rewrite the rules will face intense scrutiny, especially when linked to a tragic case such as Henry Nowak’s.
For Badenoch, the message is clear: Britain’s public sector should treat citizens as individuals, not as members of competing identity groups. For her opponents, the danger is equally clear: removing equality duties could roll back safeguards that many believe are still needed.
As the row grows, the question now is whether Badenoch’s plan will be seen as a bold return to equal treatment — or a dangerous step backwards in Britain’s long-running debate over fairness, race and public life.
