– Above, Thomas Mayes calls for lived experience to inform the socio-economic duty

What is the consultation about?

In April 2025, the Office for Equality and Opportunity opened a call for evidence to look at equality laws; this includes the socio-economic duty. It said:

“The government is seeking evidence and views […] to identify barriers to opportunity and seek expert views on how to overcome these barriers. Only by breaking the barriers to opportunity can we empower people to flourish, bringing all their skills, talent and creativity to work, spurring on growth and powering our economy.”

Why did we want to respond?

ATD Fourth World UK is a founding member of Poverty2Solutions which has been calling on the UK government to enact the socio-economic duty under Section 1 of the Equality Act. People in poverty are negatively impacted by socio-economic inequality; the impacts of poverty are varied and significant.

The hope is that the socio-economic duty would address some of the inequalities that people face as it would legally require public bodies to take socio-economic disadvantage into consideration when making strategic decisions.

Key to this having the most positive impact possible would be for the voices of lived experienced of poverty to become embedded within the implementation of the socio-economic duty. This is why we responded to the consultation; to argue for lived-experienced voices to be heard.

What questions were asked?

The call for evidence asked about the effectiveness of the socio-economic duty in places where it has already been enacted within the UK. It also asked about approaches and steps that could ensure the duty’s effectiveness. You can read the full questions here.

ATD Fourth World’s response

In Wales, the socio-economic duty came into force in March 2021. Although so far there has been limited research into its effectiveness, initial findings by Just Fair suggest it was used positively during the Covid-19 pandemic with regards to low pay and sick pay for care workers. However, this positive outcome is quite specific in nature.

ATD’s conversations with public bodies and local authorities in Wales suggest both patchy implementation and some confusion as to how public bodies should implement the duty. It is of concern that there appears to have been, at best, limited research into the views of people in poverty on how the duty’s implementation has impacted their lives, or indeed if they have experienced any changes at all.

In Scotland, the Fairer Scotland Duty was introduced in April 2018. There is some evidence that it has made a positive impact for some people in poverty; however serious inequalities remain an issue.

One example of these inequalities stems from passive harm caused by systems, such as when families in poverty are investigated by children’s social care primarily because they lack the financial resources to meet their children’s needs. This punishes families for socio-economic disadvantage, when the better approach is supporting families so they are able to meet their children’s needs.

For example, last year in the M. family in Scotland, children’s social care was planning to remove the children into care solely because their mother had inadequate housing and was unable to afford to move her family into more suitable housing.

Once the mother got an advocate, the advocate pushed for the local authority to provide suitable housing for the family. The local authority was reluctant, but eventually did provide social housing to the family. Children’s social care was no longer concerned about any other issues and so the family was allowed to remain together. This shows the potential positive impact of addressing socio-economic inequalities.

A ‘support first’ approach

The challenge is that while decisions at the strategic level may fully account for socio-economic disadvantage, additional steps are needed for this to trickle down to those working on the ground. Public bodies and local authorities need to make sure that staff (particularly those that work directly with low-income families) understand they need to take a “support first” approach that prioritises early preventative interventions instead of approaching families as if parents are choosing to leave their children in a bad position.

In addition, to overcome socio-economic disadvantage, public policy should invest in advocacy as often people in poverty do not realise what policies are in place or what their rights are. This can leave them at a disadvantage when navigating services and systems. As in the above example, advocates can make a real difference for those facing socio-economic disadvantage.

The value of lived experience

When the socio-economic duty is enacted, it is vital that the statutory guidance call for public bodies to seek out the views of people with lived experience of socio-economic disadvantage. Their involvement should be threaded throughout the development and implementation process.

A permanent body should be created for people with lived experience to be included in oversight, holding public bodies accountable for adhering to their duty. Thorough oversight of public bodies will require seeking a range of different experiences because a decision that may help one person in poverty could put another person at greater disadvantage. This is why a group of people with a variety of lived experiences should work together so that public policies would benefit from their collective expertise.

Accountability across public bodies should be at every level. For example, in local authorities, the socio-economic duty should be top of mind across all every departments because each branch and every staff member has a role to play in reducing the inequalities that result from socio-economic disadvantage.

The missing piece

We argue that there has generally been insufficient involvement of socio-economically disadvantaged groups in decision making within public bodies, both local and national. This exclusion from democratic processes is borne out in studies, for example the 2022 report from Carnegie UK: A Spotlight on Democratic Well-Being.

An irreplaceable puzzle piece is missing when the very people living the realities of disadvantage and poverty are not being actively involved in devising positive and collaborative ways forward. At ATD Fourth World, in all our projects people experiencing extreme and persistent poverty are at the centre of both decision making and action, showing clear possibilities for such involvement to lead to positive outcomes. It is evident that with the right support those with lived experience of deep poverty make significant and meaningful contributions, and that partnerships can flourish between people in poverty and those in positions of power. This kind of progress is essential for the socio-economic duty to fulfill its promise.

For example, in 2016-19 ATD Fourth World teamed up with the University of Oxford to undertake research into Understanding Poverty in All Its Forms. This research project had people in poverty at its centre throughout. As one co-researcher stated:

‘The focus on collaborative working brings together the direct experiences of those living in poverty and the expertise of researchers. While researchers and academics have access to the means of drawing attention to serious financial and social inequalities, their voice is especially powerful when it imparts the first-hand knowledge of those who suffer discrimination and disadvantage’.

Direct contributions from lived experience

ATD Fourth World recently contributed evidence to the United Nations review of the UK’s compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  People with lived experience of poverty were at the heart of this, including presenting directly to the UN in Geneva earlier this year. This is another example of people living in poverty contributing directly and meaningfully to policy discussions and debates.

We argue that with genuine involvement of socio-economically disadvantaged people and groups, the government will be able to make far more meaningful and lasting progress in implementing the socio-economic duty.

What has happened since?

So far, we are not aware of any updates from the Office of Equality and Opportunity.

– Kaydence Drayak