British Austerity Budget Discriminates Against Women, Lawsuit Claims

Budget cuts are never popular politically. But can they be illegal? Last week, a prominent women's rights organization mounted a legal challenge against the British government on the grounds that its budget discriminates against women.

The case was brought forward by The Fawcett Society, a non-profit organization in the U.K. devoted to establishing equality between the sexes. The group is arguing that Treasury officials in the new coalition government broke the law by failing to conduct an assessment of how the current austerity budget would affect women.

According to a 2007 law passed by the previous Labour government, all public bodies must comply with a gender equality duty. This is a legal requirement that orders all public authorities, when carrying out their functions, to eliminate unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex and to promote equality of opportunity for men and women.

Though the law has been on the books for three years, there is "widespread ignorance not only about how strong these laws actually are, but also what specific steps are required to be undertaken," according to Samantha Mangwana, who is representing the Fawcett Society in this suit. Specifically, the law stipulates that an equality impact assessment must be conducted before policy decisions are taken. And where an assessment reveals a risk of discrimination, urgent action must be taken to address those risks.

In mounting their case for judicial review, the Fawcett Society is drawing heavily on a study released in late June by the House of Commons library on behalf of the shadow (opposition) welfare secretary, Yvette Cooper. The study found that the new austerity budget -- which promises budget cuts totaling 8.4 percent of GDP over six years -- falls disproportionately on women by an order of 3 to 1. This is because women make up a higher number of public workers, a higher number of public service users, and the majority of those receiving tax credits and welfare payments are also women.

According to Ceri Goddard, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, the government should not only have carried out the assessment before releasing the budget, but made it public for all members of Parliament to consider. As she states in an interview with The Guardian: "If they had known that 72 percent of the cuts would be borne by women, would they have voted for the budget?" Her organization believes that the new budget "risks rolling back women's equality in the U.K. by a generation."

If the case has legal traction -- and at least one former solicitor general believes that it does -- it is likely to generate quite a lot of attention both nationally and internationally. The firm representing Fawcett Society -- Matrix Chambers -- is a high-profile, progressive law firm that counts among its founders Cherie Booth, wife of the former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

At the same time, "gender budgeting" has been gaining traction across the globe over the past decade, particularly in Europe. If the Fawcett Society succeeds in demonstrating that this new budget really is illegal by virtue of gender inequality, it will undoubtedly embolden campaigns elsewhere to enshrine gender protection in the law.

Not everyone in the U.K. is on board with this cause. Writing in The Independent, a female columnist pointed out that while it's true that U.K. women are disproportionately employed by the public sector, they go there precisely because the government has proven a much more humane and reliable partner than the private sector on things like maternity leave, flex time and a narrower pay gap with men. To the extent that this is true, she argues, it is the private-public sector gap on these sorts of labor market discrepancies that ought to be addressed by campaigners for women's rights. Moreover, because they typically work in front-line, low-paying jobs, women may actually weather the budget cuts better than men, who tend to be in higher-paying, managerial posts.

However this lawsuit plays out, it's safe to say that Britain's new coalition government has another headache on its hands. In a political environment in which women voters already felt alienated even before the election took place, it's hard to see how they will feel more reassured that their concerns are being addressed through public policy.

Follow Delia on Twitter.