A/HRC/41/39/Add.1 66. More public knowledge about the development and operation of automated systems is necessary. In the absence of transparency about the existence and workings of automated systems, the rights to contest an adverse decision and to seek a meaningful remedy are illusory. VII. Poverty among specific groups 67. Women, racial and ethnic minorities, children, single parents, persons with disabilities and members of other historically marginalized groups face disproportionately higher risks of poverty. 68. Changes to taxes and benefits since 2010 have been highly regressive, and have taken the highest toll on those least able to bear it. The Government paints a picture of austerity in which everyone has tightened their belt together but, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, while the bottom 20 per cent of earners will have lost on average 10 per cent of their income by 2021–2022 as a result of these changes, top earners have actually come out ahead. This is compounded by cuts to public spending, including on housing and education, that have hit the lowest-income households the hardest, and in England amount to cuts of 16 per cent or £1,450 per person. 81 The cumulative impact of these changes on particular groups, and the stubborn refusal of the Government to heed recommendations, including by the Treasury Committee, that they produce and publish a robust equalities impact assessment suggest that the country’s policies do not conform with the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in international law. A. Women 69. Recent policies have too often perpetuated rather than tackled the gendered aspects of poverty. Women in the United Kingdom earn less than men, shoulder a greater amount of unpaid labour and are more likely to experience poverty. 82 Single female pensioners consistently experience poverty at a higher rate than others.83 In 2018, women were paid 17.9 per cent less per hour on average than men, 84 made up 60 per cent of the workers receiving low pay85 and were disproportionately engaged in part-time work with little wage progression.86 70. Given the structural disadvantages faced by women, it is particularly disturbing that so many policy changes since 2010 have taken a greater toll on them. Changes to tax and benefit policies made since May 2010 will by 2021–2022 have reduced support for women far more than for men.87 Reductions in social care services translate to an increased burden on primary caregivers, who are disproportionately women. Under UC, single payments to an entire household, which are the default arrangement, can entrench problematic and often gendered interpersonal dynamics, including by giving control of payments to a financially or physically abusive partner. 88 The theoretical availability of alternative payment arrangements in exceptional circumstances is insufficient, and a 2019 commitment to pay benefits to the main carer in a household does not go far enough. 89 81 Reed and Portes, The Cumulative Impact on Living Standards of Public Spending Changes, pp. 29 and 43. 82 Sara Reis, “The female face of poverty”, Women’s Budget Group, July 2018, pp. 7 and 15–16. 83 Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UK Poverty 2018, pp. 13–14. 84 Office for National Statistics, “Gender pay gap in the UK: 2018”. 85 Conor D’Arcy, Low Pay Britain 2018, Resolution Foundation, May 2018. 86 Monica Costa Dias, Robert Joyce and Francesca Paroli, Wage Progression and the Gender Wage Gap: The Causal Impact of Hours of Work, Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2018. 87 Jonathan Portes and Howard Reed, The Cumulative Impact of Tax and Welfare Reforms, Equality and Human Rights Commission, Research Report 112, March 2018, p. 99. 88 House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, “Universal Credit and domestic abuse”. Seventeenth Report of Session 2017–2019”, 18 July 2018. 89 United Kingdom Government, “Universal Credit: personal welfare”, 11 January 2019. 15