Sunday, 1 August 2010

Women's Organisation is challenging the ConDom's budget cuts

Yvette Cooper, the shadow women's minister, described the ConDom budget as the biggest attack on women in generations. "You think it will be easier for your daughters and your granddaughters, that we are always moving forward [in women's rights]. This is more than gender blind." The Fawcett is doing more than making noises they are taking the government to court ,they say treasury officials broke the law by failing to carry out an assessment of whether the plans for heavy spending cuts would hit women hardest.
The action taken  is believed to be the first  legal challenge to a British government's budget. 
The Fawcett Society,  believes the plans "risk rolling back women's equality by a generation". They are represented by barristers from Matrix Chambers, which was co-founded by Cherie Booth, and follows research that suggested women would shoulder three quarters of the pain inflicted by the budget.
Karon Monaghan QC, one of the country's top equality and discrimination lawyers, will argue that by law MPs should have been able to look at such a study before voting on the budget. 
Ceri Goddard CEO of Fawcett said that a judicial review isn't something they have taken on lightly.Had the government followed the proper process, would parliament have voted for the budget? If they had known that 72% of the cuts would be borne by women, would they have voted for the budget?"
Concerns about the impact of cuts on gender equality were highlighted when a piece of research from the House of Commons library claimed, of the £8bn net revenue to be raised in one financial year, almost £6bn would come from women, compared with just £2bn from men. Also women in low-paid public sector jobs would be more likely to be hit by a pay freeze and heavy job losses. Cuts in benefits and tax credits were also likely to hit them disproportionately.
The Fawcett Society's solicitor, Samantha Mangwana, of Russell Jones & Walker solicitors, said:
"Although public authorities have been subject to the gender equality duty for several years now, there is widespread ignorance not only about how strong these laws actually are, but also what specific steps are required to be undertaken.  However, the case law is crystal clear in spelling this out.  Firstly, 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."
They have also produced a  response to the budget which is very interesting
Women's Budget Group - Emergency Budget Response Lets hope that they can get a judicial review which may then lead to more scrutiny of the swinging cuts and the necessity for such hard impact measures 

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I suspect equality isn't even on the Coalition agenda, let alone anyone caring about the impact on hard won women's right.

George Osbourne can't see past the next swing of the axe as he keeps cutting the budget deeper and deeper. There is little hope of anything that the Tories don't want being left in tact, the NHS, education and the economy after all he's got the Lib Dems will wave it through.

Fawcett member said...

There are a few matters that should be subject to this.Pity we dont have the money to do it.
Wales could do with a stong womens lobby not aligned to a party

Job Seeker said...

slightly off topic, but this is more evidence of the impact of the cuts to come in Wales.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/08/01/jobless-total-in-wales-could-double-91466-26972217/

CameronsLipstick said...

Well I guess that was one that Cameron didnt see comimg.
He isnt very equality conscious is he, judging by his cabinet.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Mam, but I disagree.

(a) If this attempt succeeds it will open the floodgates for all kinds of pressure groups to use legal means to alter the policies of a democratically elected government. This could create a retrograde and dangerous precedent for democracy in this country.

(b) Why is it that the cuts will fall mostly on women? No women-only benefits have been axed - therefore from an equality perspective (which is what the Fawcett Society says they are fighting for) it could be argued that women are currently receiving more than an equal share of benefits from the state.

(c) If the Fawcett Society feel so strongly about this issue then they should stand for election on a manifesto based on women's equality.

Mme de Bovary said...

Anon 9.32
You are ok with discrimination then I guess
Equality is enshrined in our law, why should anyone have to stand on a manifesto for it. The government should have undertaken a risk assessment they didn’t do it. They are supposed to. That’s what they are being challenged on.MPs were not in full knowledge of all the implications before they voted on the budget.
Women are only getting what they are entitled to most don’t even get that. But where the cuts are being aimed is leaving for example carers and low paid workers, most of whom are women, worse off.
The evidence is in the research that VM highlights from Fawcett. If you want to see it it’s on their web site.

penlan said...

I would be astonished if any British Court dared to challenge a money bill duly passed and assented.It is the cornerstone and most jealously guarded of all HoC rights and incapable of judicial review.

Perhaps the EU Court might differ.

Valleys Mam said...

I wonder what will come from this
Even if it’s only to actually consider all consequences not just fiduciary ones it would be good. Budgets only look at macro impacts and a money line
Peoples lives are not a factor to most accountants and banks unfortunately

Anonymous said...

Anon 13:13 - Nothing to do with discrimination. All I know is that some pressure group which I have never heard of before wants to change the will of parliament though the back door without having to bother with democratic niceties. Then again, why bother with all that time-consuming democracy nonsense if you can just get a court to go overthrow bits of passed legislation that you happen not to disagree with?

All I am saying is this: it may sound all very reasonable on the surface - but when you consider if a little more deeply it is clear that setting a precedent like this is really not a route we want to travel down. Think about it carefully before coming back and saying idiotic like because I don't want to see democracy subverted I therefore must "be ok with discrimination"...

Anonymous said...

It seems the Tories did know that the Cuts could possibly be breaking equality laws before the election.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/03/budget-cuts-equality-theresa-may

Anonymous said...

there's also a good piece by the BBC Economic Editor Stephanie Flanders on the subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/08/spreading_the_budget_pain.html

Valleys Mam said...

Thanks for the links and comments This story really has legs