The Equality Bill's Socio-Economic Duty could be better

Submitted by Will Horwitz on 18 December 2009

Harriet Harman's Equality Bill was debated for the second time in the Lords on Tuesday. The preamble claims, right at the start, that the bill will ensure policy-makers "have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities." This is great - The Spirit Level shows just how vital increasing income equality (or socio-economic equality) is in improving a wide range of health and social problems. And the Bill seems to recognise that, as did several of the Lords on Tuesday, a couple of whom quoted The Spirit Level directly.

Yet, as others pointed out, there are some problems. The first is that without much detail on how it will be implemented or enforced, there's a danger that the 'socio-economic duty' on public bodies will end up as nothing more than a throwaway paragraph at the end of every piece of policy - not understood and not implemented. Some Lords argued for scrapping the clause entirely on this basis, we'd argue for making it stronger.

Secondly the wording of the clause itself, as opposed to the preamble, seems peculiar. The clause requires public bodies to ensure their policies 'reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage.' We'd argue that the best way to reduce the inequalities of outcome are to reduce the income inequality - you need to address the cause, not the symptom - but that's not necessarily what the bill requires. Take obesity as an example: our research shows obesity rates are higher in more unequal countries, and also that poor people are more likely to be obese. The bill only requires you to address obesity, not address the income inequality that underlies it and a whole host of other health and social problems. So promoting healthy eating would presumably meet the requirements of the bill, is to be welcomed, but is not tackling income inequality.

We'll be proposing an amendment in the New Year which tries to shift the emphasis more onto income inequality, ensuring that government, public and local authorities really do ensure all their policies promote equality, making life better not just for people in poverty but for everyone.