Equality Law Call for Evidence

Consultation Socio-Economic Duty

June 20, 2025

Introduction

This response to the government’s call for evidence draws upon the Equality Trust’s research, collaboration with partners, stakeholder insights from place-based and participatory projects, and practitioner insights from the field. We have chosen to address the specific questions where we have the most relevant data and experience to make a contribution. This includes proposals for expanding protections from pay discrimination, and we have given our main focus to responding to questions 48-51 regarding the Socio-Economic Duty (SED), where our response draws upon –

research examining socio-economic inequalities, including the The Spirit Level by our founding patrons, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, which informed the discourse in 2009-2010 when the Socio-Economic Duty (SED) was developed. More recently, we have published The Spirit Level at 15, an analysis of concentrations of wealth and collaborative research into inequalities of wealth by ethnicity. In our role as Secretariat to the APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group) on Poverty & Inequality, we have contributed analysis in a range of areas including migrant and refugee poverty and heightened poverty faced by disabled people. Furthermore, we have conducted participatory research, training people with living experience of poverty and socio-economic disadvantage as community reporters; this method documents the human impact of policy decisions through the power of storytelling and thematic analysis to inform remedial action, policy changes and community-led campaigns to address local issues.

developing resources to equip policymakers, academics – in partnership with Academics Stand Against Poverty UK, and stakeholders to understand and contribute to effective implementation of the duty, and to hear their experiences and implementation pleas, including a recent series of three webinars, for which over 200 people signed up
experience in advising and collaborating on voluntary adoption of the duty in England, including facilitation of joint learning sessions to bring together local authority policymakers and people with living experience of socio-economic disadvantage. We have also provided training to local authorities and policymakers on the duty, and adding the socio-economic dimension to Equality Impact Assessments (EIA)
knowledge exchange via specialist coalitions, including contributing to the SED Expert Advisory Group with the OEO, co-chairing 1 for Equality – an alliance of civil society organisations campaigning for effective commencement of Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010, and the Make Equality Real campaign facilitated by the General Federation of Trade Unions
in-house team insights including a SED specialist with over twenty years’ experience in EDI (Equality, Diversity & Inclusion) with a track record in the public sector, delivering the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) and EIA (Equality Impact Assessment) of over 100 public policies, including the socio-economic dimension. She has also conducted a two-year study conducting a literature review and multi-stakeholder participatory, interpretive policy analysis of the SED; this included interviews with 16 expert stakeholders spanning academics, equality and human rights barristers, social justice specialists and voices of lived experience, as part of a Master of Research (MRes) Degree in Social Science Research.

Alongside our Equality Trust submission, we have contributed to the collective 1 for Equality alliance written response to the call for evidence and via a roundtable with the OEO. We urge the government to promptly bring a Commencement Order to announce the start date for the Duty. It is our hope that timely activation of the SED will be a positive step towards: phased harmonisation of the socio-economic dimension with other protected characteristics; passing of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights into domestic law; fulfilling UN Sustainable Development Goal Number 10 on reducing inequality; and, a fairer society.

Pay discrimination – race, disability and sex

Question 6. Do you have evidence about the prevalence of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex in England, Scotland and Wales and/or the effectiveness of existing measures in reducing pay discrimination?

Yes

Question 7. What evidence is there on the prevalence of pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex in England, Scotland and Wales? We are particularly interested in evidence relating to:
– the overall prevalence – how levels and patterns of pay discrimination may differ across different situations, sectors, employer types or types of work – how these levels and patterns of pay discrimination may differ where the discrimination is based on sex, race or disability

Through our EqualPay50 campaign we uncovered evidence of unlawful pay discrimination driven by high risk pay practices (as defined by the EHRC), lack of action plans to recruit and retain women in higher paid roles and lack of pay transparency.

Persistent undervaluing of work of certain groups – women, global majority people and disabled people – is not confined to one sector, although there are outliers in high gap sectors including security, retail, beauty and banking – all highly segregated sectors.

Our research, alongside the work of others, has repeatedly demonstrated that pay discrimination is pervasive, intersectional and often hidden, with the onus being on the individual to uncover this.

Inequality in employer practice has long prevented women from accessing senior roles and decent-paid work. Discretionary allocation of pay and bonuses exacerbates both the pay gap and unequal pay as it disadvantages women and, more potentially, racially-minoritised people. Pay inequality has also caused a widening pension gap for women, racially-minoritised people, and disabled people.

Question 8. What evidence is there as to the effectiveness of existing measures in England, Scotland and Wales in reducing pay discrimination on the basis of race, disability and sex?

Existing equal pay legislation puts the burden on workers to challenge discrimination and is poorly enforced. It fails to tackle structural inequalities such as the undervaluing of women’s work or intersectional disadvantage.

Ineffective enforcement

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is under resourced and rarely sanctions employers for pay discrimination
No automatic penalties – employers who break the law rarely face consequences, the burden is on individuals going through lengthy tribunal cases

Burden on workers

The current law requires individuals to bring claims. This is risky, costly and can be career-limiting – this is especially true for low paid, marginalised women
Many people do not know that they are being underpaid; or may fear retaliation – this means that pay discrimination remains unreported and unchallenged

Structural pay discrimination remains invisible

With the narrow focus on equal pay for equal work the law is ineffective at addressing occupational segregation – where particularly global majority women are over represented in historically undervalued sectors.

Lack of pay transparency

Employers do not need to publish salaries, making it hard for workers to identify unequal pay
There is no ban on asking for a salary history, which has been shown to perpetuate historical pay discrimination

Question 9. Do you have evidence about actions the government could take, and those it should avoid,to make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people?

Yes

Question 10. What evidence is there to establish the steps that should or should not be taken to make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people?

As part of the Equal Pay Alliance, we are calling for the following:

Mandatory equal pay audits for all employers with 50+ staff.

Stronger EHRC enforcement powers, including the ability to investigate without individual complaints.

Legal obligation to publish pay action plans, and to track year-on-year progress with a focus on the impact on pay gaps and inequality in their organisation

Wider pay-gap reporting to include race, disability, and job-level detail (e.g. deciles).

Salary transparency in job ads and internal pay structures.

Socio-Economic Duty

Question 48. Do you have evidence on the effectiveness of the socio-economic duty in Scotland and Wales and/or its voluntary adoption by some public authorities?

Yes

Question 49. What evidence is there on the effectiveness of the duty in Scotland and Wales and its voluntary adoption by some public authorities in England?

We are particularly interested in evidence relating to:

how effective the duty has been in improving the consideration of how decisions might reduce the inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage
reasons why implementation of the duty has or has not been effective in reducing socio-economic disadvantage
how effective the duty has been across different public authorities, populations, or other categories
how effective the duty has been in capturing the decisions that are most relevant to and impactful in reducing socio-economic inequality
whether any outcomes occurred which were not originally intended and, if so, what and how significant they were
what the enablers and barriers for effective implementation have been
the effectiveness of the enforcement regime
whether the steps taken by public authorities to meet the duty have been proportionate and promoted value for money

Learnings from Scotland and Wales

The positive framing and communication of the Fairer Scotland Duty and A More Equal Wales by the devolved administrations is noted as good practice. These framings are accessible beyond those in law, academia and policymaking, mindful of the intended beneficiaries most impacted by socio-economic disadvantage.

We would echo the findings of the Equality & Human Rights Commision (EHRC, 2021) review of how 24 public bodies in Scotland and Wales were implementing, or preparing to implement, the duty. This found that many had added the socio-economic dimension to their existing EIA process; this reflects our practitioner engagement, with feedback that this approach avoids duplication of effort and helps to prompt analysis of intersectional inequalities with communities facing higher rates, and unique experiences, of poverty, rather than a separate process for the duty in isolation.

The value of the duty alongside a package of interventions, driven by the political will to tackle poverty and inequalities, is evident in Scotland. Interventions include free school meals for all primary pupils, a programme to increase social housing, the Scottish Child Payment, greater council tax relief, work on Rights of the Child and other measures to reduce child poverty. This approach has delivered a decrease in child poverty, whereas in England child destitution is rising. The annual poverty report from Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2025) identifies that child poverty rates in Scotland (24%) remain lower than those in England (30%) and Wales (29%). Turning from the national to the local authority level in Scotland, a case study from Falkirk Council (Just Fair, 2025) illustrates how incorporating the duty into a combined EIA can avert proposed cuts with harmful consequences; the cuts considered to Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) places, school bus routes and to teachers and classes, would have had a disproportionate effect on people facing socio-economic disadvantage, and especially children. The greatest potential of the duty is from the combined effects of embedding it at both the national and local levels; this is an enabler of effectiveness in reducing socio-economic inequalities.

Learnings from Wales and voluntary adoption in England

We point to the positive SED case studies from England and Wales, gathered by Just Fair and Resolve Poverty, formerly GMPA, (2023). This report highlights that where the duty has been adopted, it is prompting positive policy changes. These span enhanced sick pay for low-paid care workers exposed to Covid-19, interventions to rectify lower uptake of healthcare such as immunisation in poorer areas, and removing the barrier of the driving licence requirement for firefighter recruitment.

Drawing upon our place-based SED work, bringing together local authority policymakers and community stakeholders with lived experience of socio-economic disadvantage in England, including in Brent, Birmingham and Derby, we can report that this has led to policy changes, including the following examples –

Ethical Debt Policies: Pledges to significantly reduce or cease use of bailiffs to collect council tax arrears and other debts, instead adopting an Ethical Debt Policy; support to help households get back on track is now provided, in response to residents’ stories of the impact of bailiff visits upon families, including those facing domestic and economic abuse. Additionally, the improved approaches also deliver better value than the low recovery rate and distress caused by bailiffs
Care leaver grants: Reviewing the delivery of care leaver grants and transition to adulthood support in response to listening to care leavers’ experiences; the young adults spoke of their financial struggles and inadequate social housing, and lack of agency in deciding how their grants were used. Some reported that their grant was used up to address shortfalls in social housing provided with bare floorboards, without carpets or flooring, and lacking curtains or blinds and basic household items, totalling above the value of their grant
Bulky waste collection: Changes to bulky waste collection fees on hearing testimony from people living in homes with damp and mould, which transfers to furniture. This causes a shorter lifespan of bulky household items and many people cannot afford collection fees, or do not have access to transport to take large items to the tip. Left with no option but to leave items on the street, people are at risk of being fined for street tipping; this also adds to decline and rodent issues in deprived areas which become more costly to address than taking a preventative, rather than punitive, approach
Living Wage: Calls to commit to the living wage have been taken on board and applied, not only to council employees but across the supply chain workforce, extending the positive impact

Furthermore, dialogue is highlighting the need to address, and yielding joint solutions for, key issues: social housing shortages; housing conditions including mouldy mouse-infested social housing; the high number of betting shops targeting poorer areas; a lack of NHS dentists; and funeral poverty. Where the duty has sparked these conversations the experiences of people living at the sharp end have often shocked and moved council policymakers, including Councillors, who had believed that their policies were working differently. Lived experience participants have helped to improve services and avoid litigation risks here, but they report that they are unlikely to have spoken so candidly about the issues if the council had called a consultation due to issues of trust, cynicism about likelihood of action or change, and fear of repercussions; the role of independent civil society and grassroots community groups in facilitating dialogue, participation and anonymised research or channels for input is key. The surprise revelations to policymakers highlight the importance of participatory approaches, centering the voices of lived experience, to the effectiveness of the duty in practice. These are important factors to address in the statutory guidance for the SED’s commencement in England.

Learning from limitations and barriers

The EHRC’s (2018) review of progress on socio-economic rights and implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, stated concern about the dormant status of the SED in England, with the following extract pointing to likely effectiveness upon activation. This offers insight into the limitations of the duty in the devolved nations alongside cross-nation policies from Westminster, where the duty remains uncommenced:

“The negative impacts of the cuts in social security entitlements on people sharing protected characteristics, for example, disabled people’s rights, could have been analysed and mitigated if decision-makers had paid due regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic disadvantage”

Furthermore, the EHRC evaluation of the duty in Scotland and Wales (2021) highlighted enablers, barriers and limitations, which reflect our experience. There has been a lack of mechanisms to capture decisions within and between duty-bearers to enable impact evaluation and exchange of good practice. Additionally, austerity cuts have limited the resources available to invest in creative solutions to socio-economic disadvantage; greater monitoring and enforcement efforts are also needed to achieve the full potential of the duty. In the England context, voluntary adoption has limitations as it relies upon enthusiastic champions and goodwill, which does not have the same effect as legal obligation.

Question 50. Other than commencing the provision, are there any proportionate steps that could be taken to ensure the duty is as effective as possible in leading public authorities to give active, high-quality and informed consideration to reducing the inequalities that result from socio-economic disadvantage?

Widening the duty’s application to more public authorities to maximise impact, including through multi-agency partnerships

The list of public authorities subject to the duty is limited, restricting impact. Section 2 of the Equality Act empowers a Minister to amend this via regulations – we urge the use of this power to achieve the duty’s fullest potential.

We note that NHS Trusts were originally included but later removed, with amendments citing the Health and Social Care Act 2012. While this Act introduced a duty to reduce health inequalities, it is limited to healthcare access and outcomes, unlike the broader strategic remit of the SED, which may include areas like recruitment and commissioning. The SED was informed by government commissioned reports and research, including The Spirit Level (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009), Fair Society, Healthy Lives (Marmot Review, 2010) and An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK (National Equality Panel, 2010). These highlighted the wealth-health connection, and importance of addressing socio-economic determinants of health and life chances. Public health bodies can act across a range of strategic areas, and with partner agencies. Therefore, we recommend that NHS Trusts, healthcare bodies and CCGs (Clinical Commissioning Groups) be included.

We seek a remedy to the post-2010 change from police authorities to Police and Crime Commissioners. The latter are politically elected in short-term cycles and more removed from the strategic decisions of Chief Constables and their leadership teams. In line with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED, Section 149, Equality Act) we recommend that both be included. This will maximise impact and ensure that police services participating in multi-agency work have a consistent standard with other partners.

Regional Development Agencies were originally included in the SED, but subsequently abolished. It is important to include their replacement – Local Enterprise Partnerships, with their critical role in reducing regional inequalities.

Socio-economic inequalities are complex and require a multi-agency approach; no single public body can solve these challenges alone. Inconsistent application of the SED across agencies risks conflicting priorities and undermining the potential to reduce inequalities through joined-up working such as Joint Strategic Needs Assessments and Community Safety Partnerships. Key institutions — in education, health, and criminal justice, and the Bank of England — are currently omitted from the duty, limiting impact. The list of duty-bound bodies needs updating to include new entities like Combined County Authorities and the Social Mobility Commission. At a minimum, the list should match those in Scotland and Wales to ensure consistency. However, it is pragmatic and best practice to mirror the same bodies subject to, and experienced with, the PSED. This consistency includes regulatory bodies such as Ofsted, Ofcom and EHRC, which can play a valuable role in promoting compliance and best practice.

Enablers for duty-bearers

Implementation pleas from our work with public authorities, and a recent virtual SED event with 23 policymakers include –

Guidance: statutory guidance with clear definitions and explanations of the law, and practical examples
Training: including in data use and stakeholder involvement
Resources: adequate budgets and resources are required, recognising the impact of over a decade of austerity cuts, lost social assets, and the Local Government Association reporting 1 in 4 local authorities effectively at risk of bankruptcy
Data: duty bearers need to partner with civil society organisations that hold data – such as universities and charities, to inform evidence-based decisions. A shared central resource of case studies would increase the pace of learning and consistency across the public sector
Regulatory and sector bodies: e.g. LGA, Ofsted, CQC, HMCPSI, etc should provide contextualised training, guidance, monitoring and facilitate peer reviews and benchmarking

Enablers for stakeholders

Themes from our place-based work and recent virtual SED events with 21 social justice advocates and 40 academics include –

Public education: empowering the public with knowledge of the SED, how to participate in transparent decision-making and holding authorities accountable
Civil society and grassroots community organisations: knowledge and resources to be effective critical friends and facilitators of participatory approaches (see Q.51)
Resourced routes to bring judicial review: legal aid initiatives and accountability are part of a healthy democracy

Communication strategy

Lessons can be learned regarding competing narratives about the SED from 2010, in media coverage and Parliamentary debate. This should inform a proactive communication strategy to precede myths and misleading commentary, promote benefits of the SED for society and counter stigmatising deficit narratives that distract from systemic root causes. The scope of the duty includes the ‘squeezed middle’ as well as those facing poverty, however this is little-known yet vital to gain buy-in. Encouragingly, polling commissioned by the Royal College of Physicians (2020) found that 78% agreed that all parts of government across the UK should have to consider the impact of their policies on people who are less well off.

We contributed to the 1 for Equality alliance response to the consultation, and wish to especially highlight –

Announcement of activation date: We recommend the UK Government promptly announce the date, via Commencement Order, to enable preparations. A sense of urgency would build public confidence on addressing current crises – such as homelessness, child poverty, austerity-related harms and the misdirecting of blame for them via divisive populism – while also ensuring progress isn’t delayed amid personnel changes, external events or political transitions.
Outcomes, not just process: statutory guidance must set out expectations for public bodies on a meaningful, rather than box-ticking, process with published targets and delivering outcomes.
Effective monitoring and enforcement: a well-resourced EHRC and independent commission with stakeholder co-evaluation of progress, as advocated by the Make Equality Real coalition
Universal coverage without exception – non-commencement of Section 1 (6): we advocate for universal rights, and therefore object to this clause which excludes people who are already marginalised and facing socio-economic disadvantage. Furthermore, legal experts have identified this clause as a problematic two-tier approach with pragmatic challenges in implementation, and conflicting with other sections of the Equality Act (discrimination on the grounds of race or nationality, and the PSED) and international human rights obligations; this makes smaller local authorities especially vulnerable to costly legal challenge, in addition to our ethical objection to the exclusionary clause. Therefore, this clause should be omitted from the SED Commencement Order.
Future proofing: Legal experts, including Professor Sandra Fredman, call for a non-regression principle to prevent rollbacks in equality and human rights law. Protecting progress—such as the SED—ensures these gains endure beyond any single government and benefit future generations.

Question 51. What evidence is there about effective approaches public authorities can take to giving proactive, high-quality and informed consideration to reducing the inequalities that result from socio-economic disadvantage?

We are particularly interested in:

use of data and evidence
the participation of socio-economically disadvantaged groups in decision making
monitoring and evaluation of the impact of decisions
transparency and accountability mechanisms and procedures

Participation of socio-economically disadvantaged groups in decision making

Participatory approaches are essential to informing strategic decisions: such methods include Poverty Truth Commissions, participatory budgeting, Citizens’ Assemblies, Community Reporting, Community Covenants and co-production. Diverse perspectives shine a light on the disproportionate and distinct ways that people’s lives are affected by socio-economic disadvantage. We point to the important principles for ethical, non-extractive approaches in the 1forEquality alliance response to this call for evidence.

Examples of reducing inequalities resulting from socio-economic disadvantage

Relevant examples from our place-based work and knowledge exchange among the 1forEquality alliance, include:

Bristol City Council – One City Plan using data to create a fair, inclusive city. Almost 50 local indicators give an overall picture of citizen wellbeing with measures of sustainability, equality, unemployment, overwork and deprivation

City of York Council – Financial Inclusion Steering Group distributes £300,000 of funding in crisis loans and initiatives

Newcastle City Council – council tax reduction scheme for single parents, care leavers, people facing hardship; it is estimated to help almost 15,000 people

Manchester, Westminster, Haringey and Middlesborough – Ethical Debt Policy or pledge to cease or limit the use of bailiffs to collect council tax arrears

Manchester City Council – grantmaking to voluntary sector projects that have an understanding of socio-economic disadvantage

Preston City Council – community wealth-building – the ‘Preston Model’; socio-economic issues are at the heart of commissioning and procurement, to improve job prospects and social assets

Derby City Council – joint SED learning sessions facilitated by The Equality Trust; this Fair Chance Derby initiative brought together council managers and lived experience participants, pooling data and insights, generating joint ideas for a multi-year action plan to tackle inequalities

Transport for Greater Manchester – adopted the SED in 2022 and listens to voices of lived experience through a Poverty Reference Group, including to review their customer charter; stakeholders were recruited through Trafford Poverty Truth Commission

Gloucestershire County Council – engages individuals affected by policy changes, including those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage, at the beginning of the policy development process

Shropshire Council – Market Drayton and Rural Parishes Community Covenant neighbourhood-level initiative to make joint decisions, sharing power with the community, including about a new Community & Family Hub, such as the location, offering and addressing local needs e.g. rural poverty

Governments of Scotland and Wales – policies to tackle child poverty and socio-economic disadvantage, including free school meals for primary pupils, social housing programmes, Universal Basic Income (UBI) pilot in Wales; appointing champions to drive progress e.g. Future Generations Commissioner in Wales, the First Minister in Scotland making eradication of child poverty a priority mission, with a whole family approach

Equality Impact Assessments (EIA)

There are examples of positive interventions as a result of combined EIAs, examining both statistical data and diverse stakeholder input, providing transparency and accountability. In addition to the aforementioned aversion of harmful cutbacks in Falkirk, examples include –

Recognising the unequal impacts of Covid-19 on those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage, Hackney Council proactively incorporated this consideration into objectives, ensuring a more equitable response to the pandemic.
When planning for a reorganisation, Surrey County Council specifically assessed the potential impact on vulnerable groups, including those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage. This led to adjustments in service delivery plans to mitigate negative impacts.

Audit Wales (2022) found that some public bodies use EIAs defensively, as a tick-box exercise against legal risk. Used proactively and in partnership with lived experience stakeholders, EIAs can lead to better services, innovation, and getting it right first time, avoiding costly course-correction. However, we have observed that the UK government’s 2011 repeal of specific EIA duties in the PSED weakened the practice. We recommend restoring these duties to strengthen work on reduce intersectional inequalities, to which the SED adds another important dimension.

Use of Data

We urge the UK government to put the SED on the radar of research councils and other large research funders, thus stimulating data analysis to inform public bodies when making strategic decisions. The academic community is increasingly adopting co-produced, participatory and action research, with voices of lived experience. Academics in disciplines such as social policy and social justice within universities can access grants and bring valuable analysis capacity to support duty-bearers.

Examples of research partnerships to inform policymaking include:

Research on child poverty in Scotland led to changes in legislation and government policies, including school clothing grants and free school meals.
The Gwent Public Service Board worked with the Institute of Health Equity to become a Marmot Region for health equity.
The University of York has a strong focus on social justice, with initiatives on social mobility and place-based interventions.
The University of Oxford runs a project to close attainment gaps in schools.
National Civic Impact Accelerator (NCIA) brings universities, local governments, businesses, and the community sector together to develop civic strategies.

Such research partnerships are patchy; the UK government should facilitate greater collaboration to aid evidence-based decisions, interventions or mitigations, and their evaluation.

Restoring social assets lost to austerity cuts

Austerity cuts and economic decline have robbed people of community hubs—from Sure Start Centres and libraries to youth clubs and fire stations—fueling social fallout like anti-social behaviour, divisive populism, hate crime, and rising child poverty. In our ‘Reconstructing the Social Contract’ project we amplified the voices of young people. There was a plea for funding and spaces for communities to create or re-establish activities that have been lost, such as developing young changemakers, public events, third spaces and localised community support. In our work with Community Reporters in Brent, the need for more community and green spaces was mentioned in almost all of the 41 stories from the project, as illustrated by the following extract:

‘I think community space and green space would be really positive because that’s where we come together and we meet and we have fun. And we argue, everybody argues, and then we get over it and we’re even better friends afterwards, you know, we shouldn’t shy away from conflict and people having a bad mood or a bad day or whatever. That’s part of it. That’s fine. And, you know, when we get over it that experience of going through that with someone makes you even closer and it’s really important to do that. If we all sort of say, oh, no, we have to be very nice all the time, then we’re not really being ourselves or we’re not showing people what the help and support we need. And we need space to do that. And it’s just being cut from under us, right, left and centre.’

Another strong message from participants, and wider work, is to put people before profit-making, reversing the trend of privatising public services, and committing to policies for social good; these include a funded NHS, affordable housing, better public services, adequate budgets for local authorities, tax justice – and rejecting policies that cause social harm. Without these steps, the SED’s potential to make a difference will be hampered.

Political will and the SED as part of a wider package of interventions

The EHRC review in Wales (2021) found some policymakers were initially unclear on how the SED differed from existing practices, underscoring the need to view its implementation within the broader political will to tackle inequality. While the duty has led to greater lived experience input and positive policy shifts where addressing inequality is a priority, its effectiveness depends on strong statutory guidance, implementation support, and enforcement if it is to withstand changes of administration. This is especially vital amid political hostility to equality, as seen in Westminster post-2010; leaving the SED uncommenced drew criticism from the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights (2019) and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2016). However, it must also be accompanied by policies to tackle the root causes of socio-economic inequality to achieve its ambition.

Contact and further information

Vanessa Boon, Senior Project Officer – Socio-Economic Duty, Equality Trust

vanessa.boon@equalitytrust.org.uk