Purvis Ghani
With the recent publication of the National Equality Panel's report on inequality and an impending general election, the fight against inequality has risen up Labour's political agenda.
It is perhaps not surprising that the government is marketing the Equality Bill as part of this fight.
The Bill contains the much hyped duty on certain public authorities to reduce inequalities of outcome, which is supposed to address the barriers in life that are inextricably linked with social class.
The proposed duty will require certain public authorities to have due regard to the desirability of exercising their functions in a way that reduces the inequalities of outcome that result from socio-economic disadvantage.
The Government Equalities Office (GEO) has recently published guidance on how the duty might operate in practice.
The public authorities subject to this duty include ministers and government departments, county councils, the Greater London Authority, strategic health authorities, primary care trusts, regional development agencies and police authorities.
The GEO has defined socio-economic disadvantage as the state of being disadvantaged in life by one or more of a range of external factors, which includes poverty, health, housing and education, all of which are linked with social class.
Inequalities of outcome have been identified as any measurable differences in outcomes associated with socio-economic disadvantage.
Outcomes may be about material goods and services (such as quality of housing and healthcare) or factors that affect wider life chances (such as income, unemployment and experiences of crime).
The duty only applies in respect of strategic decisions. These are the key, high-level decisions that determine how a public authority conducts its business.
Such decisions will include decisions around setting priorities and targets, allocating resources, commissioning services and recruitment strategies.
Resource allocation and the location of key public service facilities
The GEO guidance contains numerous examples of what this might mean in practice. For example, the duty will mean that ministers and government departments may have to consider reducing inequalities of outcome when making decisions about resource allocation and the location of key public service facilities.
Local authorities may have to think again when taking decisions about cutting funding for social housing and social care.
Police authorities may have to target deprived areas when recruiting officers and staff. Strategic health authorities may have to develop plans for improving health that reduce the inequalities in health within the local population.
This may result in more specific targeting of health resources.
Taking the remit of the duty to its extreme, one could even argue that the Treasury would have to consider the desirability of reducing inequalities of outcome when formulating tax policy.
In theory, the reach of the proposed duty is wide and can help narrow the gaps in outcomes for people of different backgrounds.
In practice, however, business may well carry on as usual because the duty lacks the punch needed to make a significant difference.
The broad concept behind the duty is not new. Public authorities are currently subject to duties to have due regard to promoting race, disability and gender equality (which will be expanded by the Bill to cover gender reassignment, sexual orientation, religion or belief and age).
However, the proposed new duty is weaker than the existing duties.
The relevant public authority is only required to have due regard to the 'desirability' of reducing inequalities of outcome.
A public authority has to weigh up competing interests and meet the duty but, ultimately, it is unlikely to be difficult for it to justify taking a course of action which does nothing to reduce inequalities of outcome.
Statutory guidance is due to be published this summer, which will give us a better idea on how effective the duty will be. Assuming the Bill gets passed, the proposed duty is due to come into force in 2011.
Purvis Ghani, solicitor, employment and pensions, Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP
From Flip Chart Fairy Tales
From Bubb's Blog
