2 August 2010
Equality campaigners have mounted a legal challenge to the emergency Budget, claiming that it exacerbates differences between men’s and women’s incomes.
The Fawcett Society has filed papers with the High Court seeking a judicial review of the June 22 Budget. It believes the Treasury has not met the requirements of the Gender Equality Duty, under sections 76A and 76B of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
The campaigners say the government should have assessed whether its proposals would increase or reduce gender equality. They claim the Treasury will not provide any evidence that such an exercise took place, despite repeated requests.
According to the Fawcett Society, 72% of the cuts outlined in the Budget will be met from women’s incomes, while just 28% will come from men’s earnings. This is because the benefits being targeted support many more women than men, while the tax changes will help far more men than women.
Fawcett Society chief executive Ceri Goddard said the emergency Budget showed a ‘whole new level of disregard for the importance of equality law and everyday women’s lives’.
She went on: ‘The blatant unfairness and the sheer scale of the impact this Budget could have on women has left us little choice but to resort to the courts for action.
‘In times of economic crisis it becomes more not less important to consider women’s basic rights, and observe the laws put there to safeguard them.
‘Women already earn less, own less, and have less control over their finances than men. Yet some £5.8bn of the £8bn of cuts contained in the Budget will be taken from women, who will also be worst affected by the coming cuts to public services – 65% of public sector workers are women.’
The Fawcett Society's solicitor, Samantha Mangwana of Russell Jones & Walker, said there was widespread ignorance in public authorities both about the strength of equality laws and specific actions needed in order to comply with them.
Case law, however, was ‘crystal clear’, she said.
‘First, an equality impact assessment must be conducted before policy decisions are taken. Secondly, where an assessment reveals a risk of discrimination, urgent action must be taken to address those risks. Clearly, if the equality impact is not even assessed as a starting point, a public authority cannot start to consider what steps to take to mitigate any inequality,’ Mangwana said.
The society is waiting for a date for a permission hearing, which will determine whether the judicial review is granted.
The Treasury would not comment on the matter.
