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
