GENDER EQUALITY AND EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN AND GIRLS IN THE UK

The global economic crisis has resulted in a number of
states, including the UK, adopting ‘austerity measures’
– reduced public spending on social security and
services. The case has been comprehensively made
that these policies in the UK have been detrimental to
women’s rights because of women’s lower earnings,
greater employment in the public sector, greater
reliance on social security as a result of caring
responsibilities, and greater exposure to ‘picking up the
pieces’ (working even longer unpaid hours) when
state-funded care for family members is insufficient.
Women who cannot access independent benefits may
remain in abusive relationships. Some recent specific
measures which have been identified as having a net
negative impact on women include child benefit and tax
credit changes; housing benefit caps having an impact
on access to refuges; and the loss of lifetime social
housing licences. The reduction in rates of some
selected taxes, again benefiting men more than women,
has compounded the unequal impact.
Civil society and women’s organisations (e.g. WBG
and the TUC) including local organisations (e.g. in
Coventry and Bristol) have conducted extensive
research demonstrating the cumulative unequal impact
of austerity measures on women, and most acutely on
older/BME/single-parent/disabled/low-income women.
Shadow CEDAW reports from the UK, Northern Ireland,
Wales and Scotland as well as shadow reports to the
UN’s Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR) have documented these issues, and in its
concluding observations in June 2016 the CESCR
raised the unequal impact of austerity policies on
disadvantaged groups, particularly women, as a
principal concern. The UK government has been asked
to impact-assess and review its austerity measures.
Case study – Economic Modelling
The UK Women’s Budget Group undertook a
comparative analysis of the simulated economic
effects of state investment in the construction
industry versus the care industry for the
International Trade Union Confederation. In all
seven high-income countries investigated,
investment in the care sector created more jobs
overall, with a higher proportion going to
women, and for the UK the total positive effects
for GDP were higher.
http://wbg.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2016/03/De_Henau_Perrons_WBG_
CareEconomy_ITUC_briefing_final.pdf
Women’s equal participation in economic life is
protected by legislation such as the Equality Act 2010
and there is an expectation across the public and
private sectors in the UK that policies for the equal
treatment of women will be in place. However, the
existence of legislation and policies is not sufficient by
itself to drive systemic change, and formal ‘equality
impact’ assessments have not prevented measures
with negative impact from being introduced. The UK
has monitored how far its legislation is enforced, for
example, in the recent government and EHRC report
into pregnancy discrimination, which estimated that
54,000 women a year in the UK lose their jobs as a
result of pregnancy or maternity discrimination. Since
the introduction of tribunal fees in Great Britain in 2014,
the ability of women to challenge discrimination has
been reduced. Research by the TUC showed that
sex discrimination claims fell by 80 per cent in one
quarter of 2014 after the introduction of fees of £1,200.
The UK government has recognised the widespread
practice of coercive control (which often includes
financial abuse) in domestic relationships, introducing
legislation in 2015 that makes it punishable by law.
However, the government is also introducing Universal
Credit, a benefit paid presumptively (unless a special
request is made) to one person in a couple. This may
expose more women who are already at risk to financial
abuse, as they will be unlikely to dare to ask for
payments to be split.
27