When stumbling upon the UK Equality Act of 2010, I noticed a very important piece of legislation that protects individuals from discrimination according to any one of the nine protected characteristics. These 9 characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and finally sexual orientation. Just to be clear, I think all of these points included are incredibly important, and this legislation serves a vital part of contemporary law to ensure we can be a fair and progressive society.

However, there is a striking absence when it comes to these protected characteristics. Arguably one of the most oppressive factors in anyone’s life is financial inequality. So why then is financial status not included in the protected characteristics? Well, by definition, a protected characteristic is a personal characteristic or situation that is illegal to discriminate against. Whilst I agree financial status is not necessarily a characteristic, I would, however, say that it fits precisely into the term'situation’. A frightening number of children are born into a situation of desperation that is completely out of their own control. This specific circumstance of poverty can reduce their opportunities and also expose them to all kinds of discrimination in terms of access to basic provisions needed for a good start in life.

The figures for child poverty in the UK are less than flattering, to say the least. According to the House of Lords Library, there were 4.3 million children in poverty in 2023, a number that has increased from 3.6 million in 2011. Therefore, while other high- and middle-income countries were reducing poverty after the 2010 financial crisis, the UK failed to address this major issue.

I believe that for us to fully comprehend the extent to which financial inequality is restricting children, we have to consider many factors. Firstly, most of the children in poverty will be more likely to eat cheap, unhealthy processed foods and have significantly less nutritious foundations than those children who grow up in more financially stable conditions. In addition to this, 9000 children in the UK live in poverty and do not qualify for free school meals, as per the Child Poverty Action Group. The impact of this should not be understated. The development of children’s brains along with their mental and physical health is being sabotaged by the current situation that they find themselves in. All of which is through no fault of their own.

Moreover, those who grow up in poverty will be further disadvantaged by having fewer opportunities to develop themselves and their interests. For those who simply cannot afford essential equipment for school, sports equipment other than an old football and an oversized hand me down kit, or even access to a musical instrument, how can we expect all of these kids to flourish in life? There will always be a magical story of a child with a miserable start in life who then excelled in their specialist field against all the odds and rose to stardom. Mozart may have been able to compose music at age 5, and Ramanujan taught himself advanced mathematics in his teens, but for the majority that grow up poor, they simply never have a chance to find out what they are good at.

I am not saying that if we provide all children with more than just basic provisions and a sound, fair chance of progressing themselves, then they will all become successful. But, what I would argue is that by giving them the opportunities to excel in school, explore their artistic creativity, or even just spend some time in the amazing outdoors, then maybe they can harness an interest that will serve as a distraction for their poor financial status. Somehow, they might not feel as oppressed or discriminated against by a society that keeps its many gems hidden from them.

According to Children and Young People report, eighteen percent of children in the most deprived areas of the UK never visit the natural environment. This is higher than the figures for those in wealthier parts of the country. Furthermore, the figures for education attainment are as striking as anything else. In 2022, The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that in the UK, “pupils who were not eligible for free school meals are around three times as likely as their more disadvantaged peers to achieve above the expected level at age 11 and at GCSE. They were also three times more likely to attend one of the most selective higher education institutions.” These are just snippets of the overwhelming confirmation that society is unequally limiting the opportunities of the poorest.

Instead of passing all this off as an inevitable result of a capitalist democracy, would it not be wiser to consider children’s health and opportunities as a characteristic or situation that should be protected? By making this a part of the Equality Act, we would be holding ourselves to account for the fair and equal childhood that all children deserve, and if we failed to provide them with this, or at least make progress towards it, we would be doing so unlawfully.

That being said, I can recognise that for a government to essentially shoot itself in the foot and adapt legislation to possibly incriminate itself would be very unlikely. However, in 2021, the Scottish government did introduce a hate speech law that potentially incriminated its own leader, but managed to avoid any consequences by saying it could not be applied retrospectively. Surely it isn’t beyond reason to suggest that we could use a similar tactic in the hope of ensuring a conscious and legally binding effort to eradicate the noxious financial inequalities imposed on children who are the worst affected, yet least to blame.