Ethnic minorities disproportionately impacted by Covid lockdowns, government admits

Coronavirus lockdowns disproportionately affect ethnic minorities, an official assessment has found as the government considers new restrictions.

Documents made public following an order by the Information Commissioner detail the “negative impacts” of Covid laws on different groups in society, including disabled people, pregnant women and the LGBT+ community.

They found that black and ethnic minority people are more vulnerable to job losses and income reduction caused by business closures, because they are more likely to work in hospitality, catering and other face-to-face roles.

The government said furlough payments “may provide temporary relief to some”, but ministers have not committed to restarting the scheme if tighter restrictions are brought in.

Official assessments also found that ethnic minority groups were less likely to have access to gardens, and that relaxations that only allowed the use of outdoor sports facilities mainly benefited “those with disposable income, white people and men”.

They raised concern about the access to government guidance in different languages, and statistics suggesting that black people were fined for Covid breaches at a higher rate than white people.

The published assessments, by the Department of Health, cover the first lockdown in England and the staggered easing of restrictions until June 2020.

They record the equality analyses undertaken for the Health Protection Regulations, which were changed frequently to enforce changing Covid laws.

“It is assessed that the need to protect lives by continuing this set of policies justifies the negative impacts identified,” said a document from April last year.

“The government will continue to keep these policies and their impact under review to ensure that disadvantages are minimised wherever possible, and that measures only continue for as long as the level of risk is assessed to be sufficient to justify negative impacts.”

The documents found that the disproportionate impact on ethnic minority groups was justified because they also had a “higher risk of infection and hospitalisation” from Covid.

The assessments also detailed negative effects on older and vulnerable people, who experienced “negative impacts to physical and mental wellbeing” as a result of shielding.

A document from 15 April 2020 admitted that restrictions would “exacerbate mental health issues”, including for people with learning disabilities, autism and other conditions who were cut off from normal care and treatment services.

The same assessment said that the stay-at-home order “presented significant physical and mental risks to victims of domestic abuse”, as well as young LGBT+ people who were “isolated in a hostile environment” with unsupportive relatives.

It warned that trans people may be unable to obtain hormones or have gender-affirming surgery due to delays and cancellations, “resulting in severe negative impacts on mental health”.

The government predicted that restrictions on gathering and movement would have a “negative impact on all families” who live apart, and a disproportionate impact on pregnant women.

The assessments found that school children and university students were adversely affected by closures, and were more likely to find it “extremely difficult to cope with lockdown” than older people.

The assessments concluded that the impacts were justified on public health grounds, finding: “If there is any differential impact, the public health reasons justify the approach, and there is no alternative way of dealing with the public health risks as effectively.”

Some measures to ease lockdown were also found to be discriminatory, such as the decision to permit individual prayer in June 2020, which benefitted Christians more than Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and other religions with a focus on collective worship.

“Moves to open up retail and opportunities for social interaction without reopening places of worship may exacerbate the impacts felt by religious groups,” a document warned.

Reports were critical of moves that disadvantaged women, such as reopening the mainly female-staffed retail sector while keeping primary schools closed.

“The assessment has identified that groups with all protected characteristics are disadvantaged by social distancing measures and there are examples of indirect discrimination of the policy,” said an assessment from May 2020.

“Young people, women, religious groups, disabled people who are not more vulnerable to Covid-19, and people in lower socio-economic groups are particularly disadvantaged by these measures.”

The Information Commissioner ordered the government to publish the assessments after it initially refused to make them public.

The Liberty human rights group had requested the documents under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, but was refused and told they should remain secret to “protect the policy process”.

Sam Grant, the head of policy and campaigns, said: “Since the start of the pandemic, Liberty has called for a public health response based on support, not punishment.

“Emergencies create conditions where our civil liberties are often curtailed and when they are it is people in marginalised and minoritised communities whose rights and lives are most affected.

“Instead of using criminal punishment and coercion to tackle a public health crisis, the government should have prioritised support measures that protect everyone. It is vital that the government puts our health and human rights at the forefront of plans to keep us all safe this winter and beyond.”