Fifth report: Unequal impact? Coronavirus and the gendered economic impact

The government partially accepts the importance of evidence on inequalities, stating that advice to Ministers already included analysis of protected characteristics as per legal requirements. However, it rejects publishing this information due to the need for confidential policy discussions.

The government partially accepts the recommendation, agreeing that policies should be informed by evidence on inequalities and stating that advice to Ministers already includes such analysis in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty. However, it explicitly rejects the call to conduct and publish Equality Impact Assessments for CJRS and SEISS, citing the need for confidential policy advice.

The government rejects the conclusion, stating that advice to Ministers already includes analysis of protected characteristics in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty. It asserts that it is not for the government to undertake economic growth assessments of independent organisation's proposals, and defends the confidentiality of policy advice.

The government rejected the recommendation, stating that advice to Ministers includes equality analysis in confidence, which is in line with legal requirements, and that it is not for the government to assess independent organisations' proposals.

The government states its approach ensures everyone benefits from growth areas like STEM, describing existing schemes like Kickstart, ongoing promotional work, and work coach efforts to increase female candidates. It also highlights existing skills support for women to retrain.

The Government rejected the recommendation, stating that Restart is an open-specification program for all participants, and Kickstart is a job creation scheme for young people, not suitable for specific targeting as a training scheme for women.

The government is "considering" the recommendation, agreeing with the principle of increasing flexible working access, and committed to issuing a consultation on making flexible working the default "in due course," deferring specific action on the requested amendment.

The government partially accepted the recommendation, committing to bringing forward an Employment Bill when parliamentary time allows (deferring the deadline) and considering the report's recommendations as part of the reforms.

The government describes existing tools and resources, such as the District Provision Tool, Complex Needs Toolkits, and Bite Size learning products, which are available to work coaches to identify claimant needs and provide support. It also notes that UC guidance is published annually.

The government discusses "A Plan for Jobs" supporting unemployed people, including women, through schemes like Kickstart and Sector-based Work Academy Programmes, and cross-government collaboration to support UC claimants with barriers like childcare. However, it does not commit to conducting or commissioning research into the gendered impact of Universal Credit design elements as recommended.

The government accepted in part, committing to maintain the £20 per week increase to Universal Credit for a further six months, and providing a one-off £500 payment for Working Tax Credits claimants.

The government rejected the recommendation, stating the £20 UC uplift was for pandemic-related income falls which did not affect legacy benefit claimants, and they have no plans to extend it.

The Government rejected the recommendation, stating that specific emergency childcare easements and guidance are already available to DWP Work Coaches via their intranet and training, and the UC guidance library is publicly available through the House of Commons Library.

The Government accepts the recommendation, stating that DWP Work coaches are already helping mothers access support through expanded employment schemes like Kickstart and Sector-based Work Academy Programmes, and cross-government collaboration aims to support claimants into priority sectors.

The government rejected the conclusion, asserting that SSP is part of a wider welfare safety net and that a 2019 consultation on reforming SSP, including extending it to those below the lower earnings limit, received a good response and will have a response issued shortly.

The government rejected the recommendation, stating existing SSP eligibility and referring to a 2019 consultation on reforming SSP, including extending it to those below the lower earnings limit, with a response to be issued shortly, rather than committing to a new study.

The government acknowledges the issue of occupational segregation by gender in apprenticeships and states its commitment to improving parity. It highlights existing consideration of equality in apprenticeship design and notes an increase in female representation in STEM apprenticeships, while also describing new Skills Bootcamps, some specifically supporting women in male-dominated digital and technical fields.

The government rejected the recommendation to publish a new gender equality plan, stating they already mainstream equality into apprenticeship design, actively challenge gender segregation, and have observed increasing female representation in STEM apprenticeships due to current practices.

The government's response discusses gender pay gap reporting regulations and extended deadlines, failing to address the recommendation regarding establishing quotas for women in the Kickstart scheme.

The government's response discusses support for disabled people in employment, the voluntary reporting framework for disability, and the ethnicity pay reporting consultation, but does not address the recommendation for DWP to introduce training for Jobcentre Plus work coaches on supporting applicants into gender 'atypical' jobs.

The government's response discusses support for disabled people in employment and the status of ethnicity pay reporting consultations, but it completely fails to address the recommendation regarding discrimination against pregnant women and new mothers.

The government's response details the collection and publication of redundancy data by the Insolvency Service and ONS, but it does not address the recommendation to introduce legislation for extending redundancy protection for pregnant women and new mothers, or to publish a cross-departmental strategy on maternity discrimination.

The government describes over £3.5 billion annually for early education entitlements, a £44 million investment for 2021-22, a pledged £1 billion fund for high-quality childcare, and a £220 million Holiday Activities and Food Programme. It also states it is continuing to work with the early years sector to ensure sufficient childcare.

The government highlights over £3.5 billion annually for early education entitlements, a £44 million investment for 2021-22 for childcare providers, a pledged £1 billion fund, and a £220 million Holiday Activities and Food Programme. It states it is continuing to work with the early years sector to ensure sufficient safe and affordable childcare in the short and long term.

The government rejects the recommendation to publish an early years strategy and extend free childcare eligibility for under-threes, stating that existing childcare support and entitlements are sufficient. It justifies the current age eligibility by citing data on mothers returning to work when children turn three and parental choice not to use childcare.

The government details the Equality Hub's goal to ensure evidence-based measures, considering various characteristics and data gaps through the Equality Data Programme and ONS Inclusive Data Taskforce. It also references gender pay gap reporting, but does not directly address the committee's specific concerns about the GEO's failure to anticipate and influence policy during the pandemic.

The government details the Equality Hub's goal to base fairness measures on evidence, considering various characteristics and data gaps through the Equality Data Programme and ONS Inclusive Data Taskforce. It also mentions supporting gender pay gap reporting, but does not directly address the committee's specific concern about a Minister appearing dismissive of the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The government acknowledged the importance of mainstreaming equality, outlining the Equality Hub's role in using data programs and ensuring departments set measurable equality objectives within their new Outcome Delivery Plans, but without committing to new, specific, and more ambitious actions or KPIs.

The government states the Equality Hub's goal is to ensure evidence-based measures through an Equality Data Programme that will improve understanding of individuals across the UK, alongside the ONS Inclusive Data Taskforce to close data gaps. It also notes departments are asked to include specific equality objectives in their Outcome Delivery Plans.

The Government outlined its Equality Data Programme and ONS Inclusive Data Taskforce to improve data collection and understanding. It also committed to requiring departments to publish specific and measurable equality objectives in their Outcome Delivery Plans.

The government rejects the committee's disappointment, explaining that the EHRC extended the gender pay gap reporting deadline for 2020/21 by six months due to the unprecedented impact of the pandemic on businesses, asserting this was the right and sensible decision.

The government partially accepted, stating that gender pay gap reporting was never legally suspended but enforcement was. The EHRC extended the 2020/21 reporting deadline to October 2021, rather than the recommended April 2021.

The government states it is 'considering' the matter and will publish its formal response in due course to a July 2019 consultation on proposals to require large employers to publish their parental leave and pay policies. The response does not address the recommendation to support The Equal Pay (Implementation and Claims) Bill.

The government rejected the imperative for disability pay reporting, citing existing support programs and a voluntary reporting framework. For ethnicity pay reporting, they are still analyzing consultation data on methodological complexities and will respond in due course.

The government rejected publishing proposals for disability pay gap reporting, highlighting existing support programs and a voluntary framework. For ethnicity pay gap reporting, they stated they are still analyzing data from a methodology testing exercise and will respond to the consultation in due course, thus not committing to publishing proposals within six months.

The Government rejected the conclusion, stating that HR1 forms are not an appropriate way to collect the recommended information due to data limitations, and highlighted existing ONS data on redundancies by sex, age, qualification, ethnicity, and disability.

The government rejects the recommendation to amend the HR1 form to collect information on sex, race, and other protected characteristics, stating the form is not an appropriate way to collect this data due to its limitations. It instead points to existing ONS data on redundancies by various characteristics.