Minister for Equalities? The Reply

You may recall this post from last January calling for people to submit letters to the Prime Minister and/or their MPs to change the remit of the Minister for Women and Equalities to be the obviously more equitable Minister for Equalities. I duly made my submission to the Prime Minister (Cabinet Office), copied to my local MP (Conservative). As I expected, the Cabinet Office passed it to the Government Equalities Office (GEO). Below is the text of my letter, followed by the reply I have just received. I believe others have received an identical response.

I was not so disconnected from reality as to expect the request to be immediately fulfilled. The purpose of the exercise – if carried out by many people – is to start the process of nudging the political psychology in the right direction (expanding the Overton Window).


My letter…

In the forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle I urge you to consider that the title of the current ‘Minister for Women and Equalities’ be changed to simply ‘Minister for Equalities’ and that the remit both of the minister and of the current Government Equalities Office (GEO) be changed to include issues affecting men and boys.

It is anachronistic beyond belief that inequality is equated with women. It is boys who are failing in education, men who massively dominate the suicide statistics, men who die earlier, and men who make up the overwhelming majority of rough sleepers and deaths at work. It is also men whom one can denigrate freely without fear of censure. And the epidemic of fatherlessness is now having catastrophic effects on the wellbeing of children and young adults. Perhaps fathers need help rather than more brickbats?

It is a strange anomaly that the remit of the Government Equalities Office is currently women, sexual orientation and transgender equality when the 2010 Equality Act recognises nine protected characteristics. Moreover, that related to sex is just that – sex – not the female sex alone.


The Reply from the Government Equalities Office… <>Thu 19/03/2020 10:33

Dear *********,

Thank you for your recent letter of 15th January concerning issues that affect men.

You raised the issue of a change being made to a ministerial title and remit. All ministerial appointments are made by the Prime Minister. Any suggestions for future ministerial appointments would be a matter for the Prime Minister to consider, but let me assure you that this Government is continuously working to ensure that gender equality works for men and boys, as well as for women and girls.

You also raised the issue of boys failing in education. Our education policies are intended to ensure that all young people, whatever their background or circumstances, have the opportunity to reach their potential. Evidence indicates that variations in the academic attainment of different groups of pupils reflects a range of complex and interwoven factors, including socio-economic; cultural; linguistic; geographical; intergenerational; and gender related aspects.

The Government’s policy has not been to create programmes and separate funding streams targeted at specific groups of pupils, but rather to support the move towards a school-led, self-improving system characterised by high expectation for all, autonomy and flexibility, underpinned by robust accountability. Teachers and head teachers are best-placed to understand and respond to the specific needs of their pupil cohort and increase opportunity and attainment for all their pupils.

You also raised concerns around the high suicide rates in men, this is a terrible issue that is of the utmost importance. Research has shown that men account for three quarters of all suicides, and that in women, suicide rates have risen among certain groups, including in the 45-49 year-old group and for the 10-24 year-old group.

I am sure you will agree that every suicide is a tragedy and we must understand the factors behind each suicide across the whole of society – including those committed by men. This is why the steps we are taking to reduce suicide rates include actions to ensure that fewer men die by suicide. In January 2019, the Department published the first cross-government Suicide Prevention Workplan, which sets out an ambitious programme across national and local government and delivery agencies to reduce suicide rates. The Workplan sets out action that is being taken across Government departments and the NHS to reduce suicides, including amongst men.

Tackling the stigma associated with mental health remains a key priority and is one that can have a major impact on help-seeking behaviours. The Government continues to provide funding for The Time to Change national initiative which continues to play a key role to reduce mental health stigma, including through campaigns targeted at men.

In addition, tackling homelessness and rough sleeping in all its forms is a key priority for this Government. It is why we are putting in place £437 million to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping over 2020/2021. This marks an additional £69 million on what the Government provided in 2019/20,  and will go towards funding important programmes such as the Rapid Rehousing Pathway, the Rough Sleeping Initiative and the Flexible Homelessness Support Grant.  

During April 2018, the Homelessness Reduction Act  was introduced to transform the culture of homelessness service delivery. Local authorities and other public bodies must now work together to actively relieve people of their homelessness or prevent homelessness for people at risk.    

We understand the importance of  taking early action to swiftly prevent and relieve  homelessness, which is why the Government  committed in  its  recent manifesto to  fully  enforce the Homelessness Reduction Act.  We have already taken steps to  achieve  this  by announcing a new  £63 million Homelessness Reduction Grant.

Regarding deaths in the workplace, Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has statistics that show that about 95% of workplace fatalities were male (*link below). However this correlates closely to the type of employment – certain occupations e.g. fishing, construction, agriculture, arboriculture are more hazardous than others and consequently more workers are killed in these areas.  The majority of employees in those sectors are men (often for historical reasons), so it is understandable that the majority of workplace fatalities are male. HSE activity is focussed on encouraging effective management of risk in the most hazardous sectors for fatalities and accidents rather than taking a gender based approach.

Finally, the UK has a long tradition of supporting working families, and we have a range of policies that support parents to take time off work when their children are born or placed with their family for adoption. Shared Parental Leave (SPL) was introduced in 2015 to support fathers to spend more time with their child in the first year. It allows eligible parents to share up to 50 weeks of leave and 37 weeks of pay in the first year. The scheme gives eligible working parents much more choice and flexibility to structure responsibility for childcare in a way that is best for them and their family.

As part of the 2019 Manifesto, the Government committed to make it easier for fathers to take paternity leave. Officials at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) are currently looking at the barriers to taking paternity leave and how we can realise this commitment, alongside evaluating the SPL policy and how the SPL scheme is being used in practice. They expect to report on findings in the spring.

I hope this information is helpful in addressing your concerns.


Kind regards,
Government Equalities Office, Correspondence Team @WomenEqualities  |

12 thoughts on “Minister for Equalities? The Reply

  1. Sean

    Equality is singular!! Pluralisation of this simple term is a mile- high tell for a bogus narrative.
    There’s a very simple conceptual duality. Either things are the same, so they are equal, or they are different, thus unequal.
    Similar bogus plurals in common usage include “identities” and “multiverse.”
    In popular fiction, these fundamental errors might be unimportant, but in Parliament, policy and Law- making they most certainly are not.

    1. William Collins Post author

      “masculinities” is my offering. Agree re: multiverse…but that’s a whole different bag of physics.

  2. Buck Deniston

    Paternity leave for men, really that seems to me to be just another resource for women. Where (when), I think, a more useful ‘leave’ would be when children are 5-6-7 years old, where the value of fathers – to the child – really presents.

  3. paul parmenter

    “…let me assure you that this Government is continuously working to ensure that gender equality works for men and boys, as well as for women and girls.”

    We must always remember that the ability to lie glibly is an important skill in political circles. Actually believing the untruths you are spouting is a bonus; it saves you having to deal with a bad conscience.

  4. David Eggins

    Kind regards,
    Government Equalities Office, Correspondence Team @WomenEqualities
    Correspondence Team @WomenEqualities
    Does that not say it all?
    In terms of our work with male and female domestic abusers Barrister Sarah Phillimore essentially said it all on The Big Questions, BBC 1 Sunday 15th March – I commend and share her observations. I’ll also get round to getting the content dictated in!

  5. Michael McVeigh

    I would be inclined to write back and say, ‘Great, so why not rename the Minister & you actually have not addressed my core issue which is renaming the Cabinet post, so can you say if the Prime Minister has been made aware of a growing concern & movement to have an Equalities minister who actually accepts that male & female should be treated the same and in order for Government to indicate that, the Minister will henceforth be named Minister for Equalities?’

  6. Noel

    I am told by a former rough sleeper that the majority can’t handle a flat. They are given a flat and money but don’t have the nous to pay rates, water, electricity and gas and then budget for food and occasional clothing.
    Many people think that rough sleepers want a home but have fallen on hard times. That may be true for some, but for many the underlying cause is a mental problem and drug addiction.
    Regarding the main thrust of your letter: the reply seems sympathetic but suitably vague. Even if the name change happens, I doubt that much else will change.

    1. William Collins Post author

      Yes, that’s correct. I did the night shift in a homeless shelter for several years and it is quite true that the No.1 problem that most rough sleepers have is not merely being without somewhere to live. It’s not being able to look after themselves. As you say, the main reasons are addiction, mental illness or simply lack of basic life-skill competence. That probably accounts for 80-90% of them. But there are a few who have just fallen on hard times and are otherwise competent – they are the ones who will benefit most immediately from simply having somewhere to live. The problem is far more intractable for the rest. I recall one guy who was given a flat and managed to set fire to it within a month. Another was chucked out of the flat he was given for using it as a base to sell drugs.

      I didn’t want to burden the post with a commentary on the response…but it would make an object lesson in political blocking and misdirection. One thing it is important to note is that I did not mention “homelessness” – deliberately – I mentioned “rough sleepers”. There are several categories of homelessness and rough sleepers are just a small proportion. In making their response largely about the homeless the GEO were deliberately bringing a great swathe of others into the picture. Shelter tell us there are 6 million families whose right to a proper home is denied: Shelter “we are a social justice organisation”. Recall that the CEO of Shelter is now Polly Neate, former CEO of Women’s Aid….you see where this is going? Those huge sums of money mentioned? Who do you think will get it?

      1. Michael McVeigh

        Yes, there is a huge difference betwen ‘rough sleepers’ & ‘homeless’ Homeless effectively means anyone who is on the homeless register and mostly means women with or without children.

        1. clay

          As long as men continue to allow and encourage their own oppression, practice blatant apathy, sitting on their collective ass with a “someone else will fix it” mentality, how do they think a change is actually going to manifest?


      2. Callum

        Your distinction between “homeless” and “rough sleepers” brings to mind the inept Dawn Butler’s conversation with Nick Ferrari on LBC (4 minutes of car crash interview worth watching [she’s an idiot]):

        There is a deliberate conflation by feminists on the subject. That’s because women are more likely to be in unstable housing (single mothers in temporary accommodation) which paints a picture of; women worst effected.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *