Women’s equality in the UK – A health check

2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
worsen gender inequality, thus enabling them to consider where mitigating action may be taken
to remove or lessen any negative impact.
Budgets and the wider resources allocated to policy initiatives are crucial in determining the
differential impact on women and men, and how CEDAW rights are realised for women in the
UK. Therefore gender analysis of budgets, and gender responsive budgeting, must constitute
an integral part of state policy-making if State governments are to comply with their obligations
under CEDAW.
Some assessment has been provided on the gender equality impact of some of the measures in
successive government budgets, these assessments are far from adequate and do not address
the rights in CEDAW. In 2011 the main budget document 28 contained no gender equality impact
assessment. It followed the pattern of the document for the June 2010 Budget in providing, in
Annex A, a comprehensive analysis of the impact on household income of changes in taxes,
tax credits, benefits and spending on public services. We are disappointed that no attempt was
made to include a comparable analysis on gender equality impacts, distinguishing households
by their gender characteristics. 29
In an application for judicial review of the 2010 Emergency Budget by the Fawcett Society, 30
the presiding judge ruled that the preparation and presentation of measures outlined in
national budgets are subject to equality law. The judge further recognised that there is a need
for improved data collection and analysis in order to adequately assess the impact of budget
measures on equality between women and men, and recommended that the EHRC carry out an
analysis of the Government’s spending plans. We welcome that recognition has been granted
at the highest level of the need to assess the impact of economic policy on equality between
women and men. Each measure in the budget has the potential to further the progress of
equality, produce no change in existing levels of inequality, or further entrench inequality.
Analysis 31 of individual measures contained in successive government budgets and the
Government’s Plan for Growth 32 shows that, while the impact of individual measures may seem
negligible, what emerges from the whole is a cumulative failure to address the inequalities
that exist between women and men and to mitigate the austerity measures that threaten
to further widen inequality. We believe that there is a genuine threat of regression in gender
equality, both in terms of income, and of jobs, and of ability to reconcile employment with caring
responsibilities. (See Article 11)
The expenditure cuts will hit women, especially lone mothers and female lone pensioners,
harder than men. 33 By 2014/5 the average household will lose public services worth 6.8% of their
income. But female single pensioners will lose 11.7 % and lone mothers 18.5%. The Government
has done very little to mitigate the effects of this. Women also paid for 72% of the savings made
by the Government through changes in personal taxes and cuts in benefits in its June 2010
28. HM Treasury (2011) 2011 Budget http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget.htm
29. Women’s Budget Group, in partnership with Howard Reed of Landman Economics, pioneered this type of analysis in its response to the
2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. See Women’s Budget Group (2010) The Impact on Women of the Coalition Spending Review 2010.
WBG: London http://wbg.org.uk/RRB_Reports_4_1653541019.pdf
30. (Fawcett Society) v. Chancellor of the Exchequer [2010] EWHC 3522
31. See for example Women’s Budget Group reports and responses http://www.wbg.org.uk/RRB_Reports.htm Accessed: 21/03/13
32. HM Treasury and Department for Business Innovation and Skills (2011) Plan for Growth http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.
pdf
33. See Women’s Budget Group (2010) The Impact on Women of the Coalition Spending Review 2010. WBG: London http://wbg.org.uk/RRB_
Reports_4_1653541019.pdf
Women’s equality in the UK: CEDAW shadow report 2013 33