Government admits EU Settlement Scheme likely discriminates against women, disabled and other groups

The government has conceded that the EU Settlement Settlement probably discriminates against various groups protected by equality legislation but denies that it is unlawful, arguing that any discriminatory effects are justifiable.

Campaigners have long been pushing for publication of the official assessment of how the scheme caters for groups protected by the Equality Act 2010, such as women, disabled people and various minorities. Almost 4.3 million people have now applied for the right to stay in the UK after Brexit, exceeding the Home Office’s estimate of the eligible population, but concerns remain about underprivileged groups falling through the cracks.

The policy equality statement for the Settlement Scheme has now been published. It sets out the Home Office’s official position on whether the design and operation of the scheme comply with Equality Act requirements. The general theme is that, while there probably is at least indirect discrimination built into the process, it can be justified as a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. Hence there are no Equality Act problems.

For example, in considering indirect discrimination based on sex, the document notes that the automated checks of government databases for evidence of residence don’t cover certain welfare payments that women are more likely to receive, such as Child Benefit. While “this could put women at a particular disadvantage”, the potential discrimination is justified because the system “reduces the overall administrative burden on applicants in general”. The Home Office also points to how it has tried to “mitigate any potential disadvantage”, in this example by accepting a wide range of other residence evidence where the automated checks don’t pick somebody up.

Similarly, the fact that disabled people are likely to find the online process harder to navigate is justified by the aim of making the system simpler in general, and has been mitigated by funding for charities to help vulnerable people through the process.

That is essentially the flavour of the statement’s 105 pages: yes there is discrimination, no it’s not a legal issue. Further analysis of what the document says — and doesn’t say — may reveal whether that stance is justified.