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

May 15, 2012 10:23 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

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 Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Labour have spoken out about complaints that Fiona Woolf QC, head of the public inquiry into historical sex abuse, has links with Leon Brittan. Brittan was the home secretary at the time when the dossier about alleged pedophiles went missing. And Woolf, who is also Lord Mayor of London, admitted yesterday that since 2008 she had dinner with Brittan and his family on five separate occasions but she has said she has “no close association” with him. A number of Labour MPs […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    Here we are again. Another week, another Wednesday, and another wrangle between Cameron and Miliband about the NHS. This is getting a bit old. Cameron attempted to get Miliband on the back foot – he kicked off PMQs by posing questions to the Labour leader about the Welsh NHS. Rather predictably, the rest of PMQs descended into the two party leaders arguing about who can be more trusted with the NHS. But, there was something a little more sinister about […]

    Read more →
  • Comment There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    A couple of weeks ago saw the UK elect for the first time a UKIP MP – Douglas Carswell, with a huge majority of 12,000 votes. UKIP made enormous strides in the safe Labour seat of Heywood & Middleton as well, reducing the Labour majority from 5,971 to 617. This rise in the ‘acceptable’ far right should be a cause of concern not just to the Tories but also to us. It is clear from these results there is no […]

    Read more →
  • Comment We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    The result in Heywood and Middleton may have shocked some people, but not all. Some warned this could happen after UKIP took or seriously challenged safe council seats in the north, topped the national vote at the Euros, and polled strongly in Labour areas. Their highest average share of the vote in the 2014 elections came in Labour areas like Rotherham, Mansfield and Hartlepool. We’re told if we campaign on the “issues” people will come back to Labour. This fails […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Last night Young Labour voted on whether or not to come out in support of the free education demonstration set to take place on the 19th November. Reports suggest, they voted against the motion. This result could easily be interpreted as another sign that the argument against tuition fees is dead in the water. In reality, it tells us that opposite is true. The very fact that this was a topic for discussion at Young Labour’s national committee, that there […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y