PRESIDENT’S COLUMN

RMT helpline 0800 376 3706 :: march/april 2026 :: RMTnews 27 There has been much talk recently about repealing the Equality Act 2010. For many working people, that debate can feel abstract or remote, but it should concern us all. The Equality Act is a practical shield that protects millions of us at work, in public life and in our everyday use of services — including transport. The Act came into being for a simple reason: Britain’s anti- discrimination laws were scattered, inconsistent and in places outdated. Over decades, hard-fought campaigns had secured protections through legislation such as the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, among others. Each was a product of struggle by trade unions, campaigners, women’s movements, disabled activists and anti- racist organisations. By 2010, it was clear that bringing these protections together into one coherent framework would strengthen and simplify rights. The Equality Act consolidated nine major pieces of legislation and over 100 separate instruments into a single, clearer legal structure. It established protected characteristics, clarified duties on employers and service providers, and introduced the Public Sector Equality Duty — requiring public bodies to consider how their decisions affect people with protected characteristics. In practical terms, this matters to everyone against discrimination because of sex, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, and marriage or civil partnership. That is not a niche list, that is society. Take maternity rights. Under the Equality Act, pregnancy and maternity are explicitly protected. It is unlawful to dismiss, disadvantage or treat a woman unfavourably because she is pregnant or on maternity leave. In real terms, that means protection from being sidelined for promotion, from losing shifts, from being forced out of a job simply for having a child. For working families, these protections are not theoretical. They are the difference between security and hardship at a time of enormous change. And yet we hear increasing rhetoric suggesting that such legislation is somehow excessive. There is a pattern in modern right-wing politics and rarely do we see proposals to extend rights for working people, safer workplaces or fairer pay. What we see are attempts to dilute protections — whether through attacks on trade unions, restrictions on protest, or now, suggestions that core equality legislation should be scrapped., This is because inequality serves a purpose for those who benefit from it. The more divided a society is the easier it is to distract, to scapegoat and to control the narrative. When working people are set against one another, attention is diverted from the concentration of wealth and power at the top. The Equality Act also plays a critical role in access to services — including transport. On public transport networks, it underpins obligations to make services accessible to all. For disabled customers, it is about whether they can travel to work independently, visit family, attend medical appointments or participate fully in society. None of this is to claim that the Equality Act is perfect. That is precisely why we should be campaigning for its development — not its repeal. In sectors like transport, where accessibility and inclusion remain ongoing challenges, the framework of the Act is essential to further progress. So, when politicians argue for abolition, we must ask: what exactly would replace it? Which protections would go? What message would that send to pregnant workers, to disabled passengers, to those facing racial discrimination or harassment at work? Rights are rarely handed down, they are won — and they can be lost. The Equality Act 2010 represents decades of struggle by working people for fairness and dignity. We should be using it and building upon it — not standing by while it is quietly dismantled. If those calling for repeal believe they have something better to offer, they should say plainly what that is — and who, precisely, would pay the price in its absence. George Welch President’s Column DEFENDING HARD FOUGHT RIGHTS doing his best in difficult circumstances to find a secure role for himself. It also found that the effect of dismissal on feelings was significant, given the loss of a career and the fact that he was left financially insecure. As a result, the Tribunal awarded substantial compensation, and member was now happy and remained employed on the railway. “I have massive gratitude to the RMT legal team and my barrister. “There is so much involved in pursuing an Employment Tribunal claim, even before the hearing, and if I were not an RMT member, I would have had to prepare and present the case myself. “It is a lot to take on for anyone, and my result might have been different without the help of the RMT. Being a member of the RMT over the years has helped a lot at work and covered all the legal fees in my case. I am still a member, as I continue to work on the railways in a pleasant, rural location,” he said.