CITIZEN EMPOWERMENT
Can spending cuts ever be ‘fair’? Chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission,Helen Hughes, says there is no simple answer.
H
ow can you make spending reduc- tions fair? This is a question that
has occupied the minds of many, from politicians and commentators to everyday citizens wondering what the cuts will mean for them. Local authorities too are increas- ingly having to ponder this question.
There is no simple answer. Much de- pends on how you define the word ‘fair’. But we at the Equality and Human Rights Commission would argue that part of the answer must be to ensure that transpar- ency is at the heart of the process, and that decisions are taken in light of proper evi- dence that ensures good intentions trans- late into good outcomes without unintend- ed consequences. Where evidence suggests the impact may fall disproportionately on those who can least afford them, careful consideration must be given to potential mitigation.
Equality law already stipulates that this should be the case. As a result of the pub- lic sector duties on race, disability and gender, policy makers have a legal obliga- tion to pay ‘due regard’ to equality when making decisions, including decisions in relation to spending and proposed budget cuts. Where decisions are found to have a disproportionate impact on a particular group, authorities must consider what ac- tions can be taken to avoid or mitigate the unfair impact.
The law does not prevent government of- ficials from making difficult decisions. Nor does it stop them from making decisions that may affect one group more than an- other. The law simply requires that such decisions are made in a fair, transpar- ent and accountable way, considering the needs and the rights of different members
of the community. And while this may be a legal obligation, it is also the right thing to do in order to ensure the public has con- fidence that difficult decisions have been taken fairly.
‘Equality impact assessments’ are a prac- tical way for policy makers to meet this obligation. A good assessment contains sufficient information to enable a public authority to show it has paid ‘due regard’ to equality duties in decision making and identify methods for mitigating or avoid- ing adverse impact. It is also important to note that from this month, April 2011, a new ‘public sector duty’ comes into force which extends coverage to age, sexual ori- entation, pregnancy and maternity, and religion and belief. In preparation for this change, we would like to see public au- thorities start to assess the impact that fi- nancial decisions might have on these new groups protected by law.
Ahead of the spending review, the Commission worked hard to ensure that those at the national and local level charged with taking these difficult deci- sions are empowered to get it right.
In June 2010, we wrote to all government departments, including the Treasury, ask- ing for reassurance that they would comply with the legislation and issued guidance to help them to do this. The Commission then met with all relevant ministers, including Treasury ministers, to reinforce the point.
In addition, we led a series of practical workshops for finance directors in govern- ment departments to explain the duties and in October 2010 we published guid- ance targeted at practitioners as well as decision-makers.
We also launched an interactive online platform to support decision-makers with relevant information (see ‘for more infor- mation’, below).
When the spending review was an- nounced, the Commission welcomed the fact that the Treasury recognised its role in assessing the overall impact of decisions through the publication of a high level overview of the impact of the spending re- view on equality. In our role as regulator, the Commission will look at the Treasury’s impact assessment in detail and come to an independent view as to whether or not it has served its intended purpose.
We also welcomed the Treasury’s an- nouncement that they expected individ- ual government departments and local authorities to undertake equality impact assessments when coming to decisions regarding their settlements. As we move forward, the Commission is also keen to ensure the Treasury considers the cumu- lative equality impact of changes resulting from the spending review and decisions taken by individual government depart- ments. This will ensure understanding of the total combined effect of spending deci- sions by different departments on a par- ticular equality group.
Visit
equalityhumanrights.com/financialdecisions Helen Hughes
The challenge has now been laid down. It’s up to government at the national and lo- cal level to get it right and for the EHRC to support and monitor compliance.
FOR MORE INFORMATION public sector executive Mar/Apr 11 | 21
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68