Published: 23rd March 2026 Ahead of PLP’s upcoming webinar series Influencing for Impact: Making policy design fairer, this blog explores three key principles for creating policy that is not only effective, but genuinely fair and inclusive. Designing good policy isn’t easy, but it is possible. However, when we get it wrong, the consequences can be devastating. Government policy decisions do not affect each of us equally. When policy results in unintended, or worse, deliberate harms for marginalised groups, we need to look to the process of policy design. If we want to build fair solutions to the challenges facing society today, we need to start with the process. The principles below show how governments can design policy in a way that works for everyone — not just the majority. Participation Responding to consultations is an important part of any public affairs toolkit. In the last year, government departments have run more than 600 consultations on a wide range of topics ranging from digital ID to company tax returns. But how effective are these consultations in practice? Their actual effectiveness was summed up by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, when speaking about the digital ID consultation, “This consultation is not a performative consultation, it’s a genuine one. That’s why we’re not just doing a kind of online consultation in the way that normal consultations might happen.” The suggestion from a senior minister that most consultations are ‘performative’ is deeply concerning. For PLP, strengthening the accountability of public bodies is central to our work; consultations must move beyond being a box-ticking exercise. In 2025, the High Court ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions had acted unlawfully by running a misleading consultation on benefit assessment reforms. The proposed reforms to the Work Capability Assessment were presented during consultations as a way to support Disabled people into work, without making clear that the real motivating factor for the reforms was cost savings. PLP client Ellen Clifford’s legal challenge exposed just how flawed the consultation process can be. Rather than enabling genuine public participation, the Work Capability Assessment consultation was used to push a false narrative about motivation for reforms. If one consultation can be ‘genuine’, then all of them should be. Gathering diverse perspectives and expert opinions can only produce better, fairer policy — if they are actually taken into account. Lived experience As well as public participation, policy design must specifically seek input from groups with lived experience relevant to the issue at hand. When public services are being developed, reviewed or reformed, engaging with the perspectives and experiences of those who actually use them results in a more effective, and fairer, system. In 2025, the Right to (Addiction) Recovery Bill in Scotland, the Scottish Health, Social Care and Sport Committee ran a dedicated lived experience engagement process to their call for evidence. Interviews with Committee members have later showed that this engagement challenged their biases and changed their perspectives on addiction. Lived experience engagement allowed the Committee to investigate whether the bill would really meet the needs of those recovering from addiction, and questions raised by participants were later asked to witnesses in oral evidence sessions. One Committee member said, “I’m sitting [and] writing down the potential amendments to the Bill directly from input from people with lived experience”. The third sector has a major role to play in facilitating this process; multiple Scottish Committees have partnered with NGOs to set up lived experience committees as part of consultative processes. Although charities should not be a filter of what lived experience is ‘valid’, this case study shows how charities can achieve impact through their networks and convening power — and how decision makers can incorporate lived experience to improve their work. Scrutiny Recent changes to refugee status in the UK have been dominating the headlines. Refugee status has become temporary, with leave to remain that refugees receive reduced from five years to two and a half. Further proposed changes could mean it would take a refugee twenty years to become eligible for permanent settlement. The fear and lack of stability this creates for refugees putting down roots in the UK, and the probable increase to the asylum backlog that will result from doubling how often cases are reviewed, are deeply problematic. However, there is another cause for concern. These changes were pushed through as changes to Immigration Rules, without parliamentary scrutiny. The Home Secretary has expansive powers to make such policy changes without proper oversight or scrutiny — raising important questions about accountability. The process of parliamentary scrutiny provides an important opportunity to improve (or in some cases, mitigate the risks of) a change in policy. If this change had gone through the legislative process, it would have been debated, amended and potentially rejected. Migrant and refugee rights organisations would have also had a stronger opportunity to warn against the harmful impacts of these changes. No government should be introducing life-altering changes with so little scrutiny. The legislative process is a critical period for stakeholders, including charities, campaigners and lived experience groups, to have their voices heard. Legislative scrutiny opens up influencing opportunities beyond those handpicked by the government. It is crucial that civil society and the wider public stand ready to take these opportunities. Join our upcoming webinars to explore this discussion further.