Equalities can’t be an afterthought when spending decisions are made

15th May, 2012 10:23 am

Yesterday’s report by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) shows serious shortcomings in the Government’s approach to meeting its responsibility to assess the impact of its policies on equality. It highlights the Government’s failure to consider equalities as a central issue for public spending, rather than an afterthought.

The Equality Act set out specific duties on all public sector bodies to assess the different impacts of their policies by gender, disability status and ethnicity. As figures emerged that around 70% of the additional burden from tax credit changes, benefit cuts, and changes to public sector pensions in the Spending Review and Emergency Budget would fall on women, doubts emerged about whether this duty was being taken seriously. When the Fawcett Society issued a legal challenge under the Act, the Judge recommended that the EHRC assess the extent of Government compliance. Yesterday’s report is the long-awaited result of that process.

It seems Ministers were in such a rush to make cuts that decisions were being taken without stopping to make sure their impact was being properly analysed. While in six of the nine areas the Commission examined in detail, they believe that the basic requirements of the duty were met, they point out that the Government often cited ‘insufficient data’ as a reason for not examining the gender impacts of cuts – an assertion challenged by the Institute for Fiscal Studies among others.  The Home Office – the Minister for Equality’s own department – is particularly singled out for criticism as providing  “no data or analysis  on the potential impact of the Home Office’s measures on race, gender or disability equality, to take into consideration when deciding the Home Office’s settlement”. And in three key areas, the introduction of the household benefit cap, the impact on cuts to the Bus Service Operators Grant, and the abolition of the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA), the Commission were “unable to establish whether or not the decisions were in full accord with the requirements of the duty.” The gender impact of the Household Benefit Cap was listed as ‘unknown’, despite the fact that subsequent analysis revealed that 60% of those affected would be single women, and just 3% single men.  The potential impact on people with disabilities of cuts to the bus transport budget was not included in advice to Ministers, and perhaps hardest to believe, there was no reference to ethnicity, disability or gender in information provided to HM Treasury ministers about the cuts to EMA.

But maybe most damning is the fact that no assessment was being made of the cumulative impact of the cuts on any of these groups. As the report states: “As no department or body has clear responsibility for working out the cumulative equality impact of separate departmental measures within a Spending Review then this analysis does not happen in any meaningful or comprehensive way. This means that no one has any clear idea as to how these measures will work together and what their combined impact on protected groups might be.”

Once again we only need to look at the hugely disproportionate impact on women of the cuts to see the results of this. House of Commons Library research has shown that, of nearly £15 billion in tax, benefit and pension changes announced in the Emergency Budget, Spending Review, 2011 and 2012 Budgets and the 2011 Autumn Statement, £11,104 billion, or 74% is being shouldered by women.

Without an assessment of the cumulative impact of cuts , there’s no way the Government can set out a strategy as to what they might want to achieve in terms of equality.  This is especially worrying when we consider the evidence that shows that we don’t just need to look at the impact on equality groups because of basic principles of fairness, but because we know that addressing persistent inequalities has to be a key part of any route back to economic prosperity. As the Resolution Foundation have shown, a million women are missing from the UK workforce because of our continued failure to get a better balance between working and childcare. The  disproportionate impact of youth unemployment on black and minority ethnic groups isn’t just an injustice, it’s a huge waste of talent. And while George Osborne talks about a further £10bn cuts to welfare, this misses the point that the most sustainable route to cutting the costs of benefits to disabled people would be breaking down barriers to their employment rather than further impoverishing those who cannot work.

Putting equalities centre stage when thinking about economic policy is fundamental, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because highlighting where there’s failure to exploit people’s potential is key to addressing the long term challenges we face in returning to economic growth. But there’s little sign on the evidence of this report that the Government’s made the connection.

Kate Green MP is the Shadow Minister for Equalities – this is the first in a  series of posts in the coming weeks.

  • J7Sue

    The surrounding adverts, particularly the OU MBA one, are so distracting that it’s almost impossible to read the article.  Is that the point?

    • MonkeyBot5000

      Download the Firefox web browser and use the AdBlock plugin.

      No more ads!

  • Mike S

    Kate you get carried away in this article and appear to be exceptionally sexist whilst you’re doing it! Comments like ‘…60% of those affected would be single women, and just 3% single men’ prove the point. This appalling policy impacts people. It’s as bad if it’s 60% single men and 3% single woman or indeed 31.5% each. It’s the policy you should be attacking and it degrades both men and women to reduce the argument to what is or is not between our legs. So come on Kate, pull your socks up. We are meant to be fighting for justice and opportunity for all. We would stand a better chance if we frame our argument in an inclusive manner. Stronger together.

  • AnotherOldBoy

    I have only read the executive summaryof the EHRC report, but wonder whether Ms Green MP has even done that.  The EHCR concluded:
     
    “Overall, the Commission found a serious effort by ministers and officials to meet their obligations under the existing equality duties. In particular:
    (1) The government published, for the first time, an equalities overview document, alongside the Spending Review.
    (2) Equality ministers formally drew departments’ attention to the requirements of the equality duties.
    (3) As well as gathering equality data and assessing the impact on equality groups, HM Treasury made an attempt to analyse the effects of its proposals on different income groups and sometimes used this as a proxy for understanding impact on protected groups.
    (4) Where they considered it relevant, ministers demanded more and better information about the equality impacts of proposals.
    The Commission considers these steps commendable, particularly in the light of the pressures faced by ministers and officials.”

    Yet Ms Green thins the report “highlights the Government’s failure to consider equalities as a central issue for public spending, rather than an afterthought”.  What utter tosh!

    • Dave Postles

      ‘However, in three cases, the Commission says that it was unable to
      establish whether or not the decisions were in full accord with the
      requirements of the duty because of a lack of clarity as to a) where
      the true site of the decisions lay and b) whether or not some decisions
      were the responsibility of other government departments or the
      government as a whole.

      These cases are:

      Introduction of a household benefits cap. There was no
      evidence of any gender analysis or equality screening of the measure
      provided to HM Treasury ministers prior to the announcement of the
      measure.Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG). The potential
      impact on people with disabilities was not included in the advice
      provided to HM Treasury ministers.Replacing Education
      Maintenance Allowance with local discretionary funds. There was no
      reference to ethnicity, disability or gender in information provided to
      HM Treasury ministers.

      The Commission believes that it would be disproportionate to take
      further formal action in these three specific decisions. The government
      has, however undertaken to work with the Commission and its officials
      to address the issues raised by the report.’

      http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2012/may/commission-publishes-formal-assessment-of-government-s-2010-spending-review/

      • treborc1

         Disability has dropped off the EHRC radar

  • treborc1

    Once the DRC went, the disabled people sacked from the DRC and it was placed within the EHRC, disability took a massive step backwards and it was done because Brown did not like the compensation the disabled were getting from emp0loyers who sacked them, refused to take access seriously. These days to find the disability area in the EHRC is hard enough

Latest

  • News Maria Eagle accuses Cameron of breaking Leveson promise

    Maria Eagle accuses Cameron of breaking Leveson promise

    Labour is seeking to force the Government to proceed with the second part of the Leveson inquiry after Ministers suggested it was on the brink of being dropped. Maria Eagle, shadow Culture Secretary, accused David Cameron of breaking a promise to set up an examination of misconduct in the press and police, which was due to follow the completion of criminal investigations triggered by the phone hacking scandal. Today Eagle said Cameron is “reneging on this promise as though he […]

    Read more →
  • News Striking doctors fight imposition of contracts but Labour “neutral” on walkout

    Striking doctors fight imposition of contracts but Labour “neutral” on walkout

    The head of the body representing NHS Trusts sparked fury by urging Jeremy Hunt to override the views of striking doctors and impose on them the controversial new contracts. Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, called for a tougher government approach as around 37,000 medics joined the 24-hour walk-out at 8am today. He spoke out as Labour again condemned the “utter shambles” which led to the strikes, now in their second wave. Hopson urged the Department of Health to […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour must be bolder than the Tories on devolution

    Labour must be bolder than the Tories on devolution

    The launch last week of the new Centre for Cities report Cities Outlook 2016 brought another stark reminder that most cities in the North and Midlands are continuing to punch below their weight economically – with wages in most places north of the Watford Gap falling below the national average, while welfare spending is higher. In Hull, for example, average weekly wages amount to just £376, compared to £539 in Milton Keynes, and £591 in Reading. Even in Manchester – […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured PMQs Verdict: Corbyn shows his passion for housing, despite his relaxed approach

    PMQs Verdict: Corbyn shows his passion for housing, despite his relaxed approach

    Jeremy Corbyn cares about housing. This is obvious. But does he care much about PMQs? At his first meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) as leader, he told MPs that housing would be one of his biggest priorities. Shortly after that, he made the Shadow Housing minister a Shadow Cabinet role, and in John Healey appointed a well-respected figure across the party to the brief. Only last week, the party launched a review, the biggest of its kind in […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured MPs should have more respect for their colleagues rather than ridiculing them

    MPs should have more respect for their colleagues rather than ridiculing them

    Monday night shouldn’t have happened as it did: a group of Labour MPs roaring at their colleague Emily Thornberry about Trident, then telling journalists all about it. Screaming down fellow Labour MPs and parading internal feuds in front of the media, doesn’t do anyone any favours. It’s a state of affairs that wouldn’t be acceptable in most workplaces. It doesn’t have to be this way; dispute doesn’t have to lead to all out war and debate doesn’t have to morph […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit