BBC Newsnight erupts as Victoria Derbyshire and Zia Yusuf clash in fiery Equality Act showdown

Victoria Derbyshire clashed with Zia Yusuf on the BBC

It was meant to be another robust political interview. Instead, viewers of BBC Newsnight were treated to one of the most tense exchanges in recent months as Victoria Derbyshire and Reform UK chairman Zia Yusuf locked horns over the party’s controversial pledge to scrap the Equality Act.

From the opening moments, the atmosphere felt charged.

Reform’s position — amplified in recent days by comments from Suella Braverman about abolishing what she described as the “pernicious, divisive notion of protected characteristics” — has ignited fierce debate. But on Tuesday night, it was Derbyshire who forced Yusuf to confront the practical consequences of that promise, question by pointed question.

“You’re going to scrap the Equality Act,” Derbyshire began, her tone measured but unyielding, “but you’re still going to protect, for example, pregnant women from being sacked because they’re pregnant?”

Without hesitation, Yusuf replied: “That’s exactly what we would do.”

It was the first of several moments that left viewers visibly puzzled — and Derbyshire determined to dig deeper.

“So you’re abolishing the Act,” she continued, “but the protections remain?”

“Yes,” Yusuf insisted. “We will protect people from discrimination.”

But as the interview unfolded, clarity seemed increasingly elusive.

Derbyshire pivoted sharply to disability rights.

“This Act means that if you have a disability, you’ve got equal access to a job. Equal access to public transport. Practical measures — doorframes have to be wide enough for wheelchairs. Buildings must be accessible. These are not abstract ideas. They’re daily realities. Do you not want to protect those people?”

Yusuf leaned forward.

“Yes, you can expect those things to be protected,” he said firmly.

There was a pause — the kind that lingers just long enough to signal unfinished business.

“Right,” Derbyshire pressed. “So which of the protected characteristics do you not want to protect anymore? Because I’m not clear.”

It was at that moment the interview tipped from tense to combustible.

Yusuf shifted the frame of the conversation.

“We’ve got to look at why there are huge problems in this country,” he said. “There are left-behind white working-class boys who are being failed by the system—”

Derbyshire cut in.

“No. The question was specific,” she said sharply. “Which characteristic would you remove?”

“You’ve got to look at how all these things work together,” Yusuf countered. “You can’t reduce a serious conversation like this to two minutes.”

“I’m not reducing anything,” Derbyshire fired back. “I’m literally going to go through the list and ask what a Reform government would protect.”

For viewers at home, it was a moment of high political theatre: two sharply opposed philosophies colliding in real time.

The Equality Act 2010 currently protects individuals from discrimination based on characteristics including age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, S-e-x, S-e-xual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, and marriage or civil partnership. Reform’s pledge to scrap the legislation has raised alarm among equality campaigners, who warn that dismantling the framework could weaken legal safeguards built over decades.

But Yusuf argued the Act has created unintended consequences.

“The problem,” he said, “is that the current framework entrenches division. It categorises people in ways that create grievance politics.”

Derbyshire did not let the claim go unchallenged.

“Are you saying protecting disabled people from discrimination creates division?” she asked.

“No,” Yusuf replied, visibly frustrated. “I’m saying the way the Act operates in practice creates distortions. It doesn’t address the root causes of inequality.”

“What are you scrapping?” Derbyshire demanded again.

The exchange became increasingly rapid-fire.

“We will replace it with legislation that ensures fairness for everyone,” Yusuf said.

“But what does that mean in practice?” Derbyshire pressed. “Because right now, the Act explicitly protects people. You’re asking voters to trust you’ll replace it with something — but you can’t tell us what disappears.”

Yusuf accused the BBC of oversimplifying Reform’s platform.

“This is exactly the problem,” he said. “Serious reform can’t be boiled down to a soundbite.”

Yet the pressure only intensified.

Yusuf and Derbyshire did not see eye to eye (Image: BBC)

“If a Reform government came in tomorrow,” Derbyshire said, “would race still be a protected characteristic?”

“Yes.”

“S3x?”

“Yes.”

“Disability?”

“Yes.”

“S3xual orientation?”

“Yes.”

“Religion?”

“Yes.”

“So what is being removed?” she asked again.

Yusuf hesitated — briefly — before reframing once more.

“The current system has failed,” he said. “It has failed ordinary working people. We need to rebuild it in a way that restores meritocracy and cohesion.”

For critics, that ambiguity is precisely the concern.

Campaigners watching the exchange described it as “deeply troubling,” warning that without clear legislative proposals, pledges to scrap foundational equality law create uncertainty for millions of people who rely on its protections.

But supporters of Reform saw something different: a challenge to what they view as bureaucratic overreach and identity-based politics.

The tension in the studio mirrored the broader national debate.

At one point, as voices overlapped and the pace quickened, Derbyshire appeared momentarily thrown as Yusuf spoke over her — a rare crack in the presenter’s usually unflappable composure.

“Let me finish,” he said.

“No,” she replied calmly but firmly. “Answer the question.”

It was a microcosm of modern political interviews: competing narratives, clashing priorities, and an audience demanding clarity.

As the segment drew to a close, Derbyshire summarised the impasse.

“You are asking the country to scrap a law that underpins discrimination protection — but you cannot yet explain precisely what will change.”

Yusuf responded: “We are asking the country to have an honest conversation about whether the current framework is delivering equality or entrenching division.”

Whether viewers felt enlightened or exasperated likely depended on their political perspective.

On social media, reactions were immediate and polarised. Some praised Derbyshire for her “forensic questioning.” Others accused the BBC of hostility.

But one thing was clear: what began as a policy discussion had evolved into a confrontation over first principles — what equality means, how it is enforced, and who decides its boundaries.

In a political landscape already bristling with ideological fault lines, the BBC studio became the latest battleground.

And if the goal was to spark debate, it certainly succeeded.