Priorities or outcomes should be set for the duty, some applying nationally, in addition to latitude for locally set ones. Having clear outcomes is key to being able to measure progress and success. These outcomes could be in relation to inequalities in education, health, housing, crime rates, or other matters associated with socio-economic disadvantage. 

If used effectively, combined/cumulative impact assessments can:

• avoid duplication of effort across various duties (such as the Public Sector Equality Duty)
• help decision-makers understand issues in a more factual way
• understand the range of ways a decision can impact those impacted by it with intersectional analysis informed by diverse stakeholder voices
• examine the mitigations available

and ultimately make better-informed decisions.

Identifying a core set of proxy indicators is important to ensure systematic and consistent action, identify cumulative impact and track actual impact. There is also a need for budgetary or decision-specific flexibility on the data used to assess and mitigate socio-economic disadvantage. There is a clear role here for centralised support – including a co-ordinator to oversee work on the duty.

In Just Fair’s 2018 report, research highlighted that it is essential that someone senior, the Leader or an Executive Member, champion the work on tackling socio-economic disadvantage and communicate clearly and consistently why it is a priority in the context of each public authority subject to the duty.

The involvement of people with lived experience of socio-economic disadvantage is at least as crucial to the data needed for effective implementation of the duty as traditional sources of quantitative data, and they must be involved not only in data collection, but also in monitoring and evaluation.

But to do this work effectively, it will often require duty bearers to fundamentally alter the way in which they engage with residents affected by socio-economic disadvantage through a radical process of reimagining expertise, and recalibrating working processes.  Members of the 1ForEquality Campaign worked with Poverty2Solution to lay out some key principles when working in partnership with people with lived experience of socio-economic disadvantage in our 2021 publication.

Clearly defined outcomes as detailed above will be critical for monitoring and evaluation. However, we believe there should be an increased role for a regulator, including use of powers as laid out in the Equality Act 2006, to ensure effective enforcement of the duty.

Consideration should be given to what enablers and barriers there may be to a regulator using its power – including adequate resourcing and clear direction from government about the intention of enforcement.

In implementing the duty in Scotland, the work of the Improvement Service was recognised as particularly helpful in providing a central contact point, providing training and gathering best practice. We recommend a similar model of a central support hub be established across Great Britain to facilitate commencement of the duty.

Two key steps in effective commencement of the duty are valuable, considered statutory guidance and effective resourcing. Effective guidance and resourcing are key to leading public authorities to give active, high-quality and informed consideration to reducing the inequalities that result from socio-economic disadvantage.

The statutory guidance must clearly define what is meant by a ‘strategic decision’. For the duty to be effective, a broad definition must be provided – such as has happened in both Scotland and Wales.

Who the duty applies to is another important lever to ensure the duty is as effective as possible. As such, the equivalence of the lists of authorities the duty applies to in Scotland and Wales should be used as a minimum position for the duty’s application. 

The UK Government should not commence subsection 6 when the rest of section 1 is commenced. A commencement order should be made only for section 1, clauses 1(1)-1(3). As an organisation, we believe that rights are universal – they apply to anyone without any distinction – including immigration status. On this basis we are opposed to the premise of subsection 6. 

However, we also believe the subsection could be open to misapplication and difficult to apply. If the subsection was commenced, experience suggests it would not regularly be employed.