Budget Strategy Phase 2011-12
The second agenda item is the committee’s final evidence session in its brief inquiry at the budget strategy phase 2011-12, in which we are considering how we ensure that the provision of public services that are aimed at equality groups is maintained adequately during a period of tightening public expenditure.
I am pleased to welcome John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth; Russell Bain, the head of the Scottish Government’s public service reform policy team; and Yvonne Strachan, the head of the Scottish Government’s equality unit, who is no stranger to the committee. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement.
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney)
I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the forthcoming financial environment. I hope that the committee will find it helpful if I set out a few key points about our approach in that context.
As members know, projections of future public spending throughout the United Kingdom suggest that all branches of government will need to operate in an environment of greater financial constraint, although considerable uncertainty will remain until an incoming UK Government conducts the comprehensive spending review. We are already facing up to constraints in spending in the current financial year and have delivered a Scottish budget for 2010-11 that prioritises economic recovery and protects front-line services.
The equality statement that we published alongside the draft budget last September sets out the actions that we are taking to ensure that the public money that we spend contributes to greater equality in Scotland. Our aim in the current financial year and the years beyond is to promote the successful and sustainable transformation of communities throughout Scotland by ensuring that people’s life chances are improved and not diminished because of the barriers that they face as a result of their race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation or faith, and nor indeed as a result of their socioeconomic status.
The committee is aware of the outlook for public spending that the Scottish Government’s chief economic adviser has set out. The budget for 2010-11 started the process of addressing that challenge. There needs to be a properly informed debate about the future challenges and mechanisms that are needed to enable objective and proper assessment of the choices that we face. The Government has therefore put in place the independent budget review, to provide advice to Government and to Parliament and to inform wider public debate about the options and choices that we should consider.
I have asked the independent budget review to take into account, as part of its remit, the importance of protecting and supporting the most vulnerable people in our society and of designing public services around the needs of the citizens who use them. The independent budget review will also consider the importance of identifying options that support delivery of the Scottish Government’s purpose and the framework of national outcomes.
In addition, I will consider the report from the equality and budget advisory group, which is expected in the early summer. That will help to inform our approach to the budget in 2011-12 and beyond.
At a local level, we expect a significant focus on achieving better outcomes in a tightening financial environment. The national performance framework, with the focus provided by outcome 7, can act as a driver to ensure that decisions that are taken regarding the delivery of public services can meet the diversity of local needs.
We need to consider how to enable the reporting of equalities to be better incorporated within the main reporting mechanisms. We will be considering how best to do that when we examine the implementation of the new public sector equality duties and how they link with existing best-value mechanisms.
The Scottish Government, like public authorities throughout Scotland, wishes to give due regard to equality in its decision-making processes in budget and policy areas. The public sector equality duties help us in that regard, and they are entirely consistent with our outcome-focused approach and public sector reform agenda.
Whatever long-term changes might be required, the third sector, communities and equality groups need to be engaged as partners in shaping the way ahead. We have already begun that process. For example, we have sought views from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and disabled people on how better to enable disabled people to live independent lives.
Key to the longer-term ability to deal with pressures across the public sector will be the data and information that are available to us, and the capacity of the public sector for detailed equality analysis.
We will consider what practical support is needed for the public sector, through the design, communication and implementation of the new public sector duties under the Equality Act 2010. That will take time, but I look forward to today’s discussion contributing to that continuing process.
Thank you for that comprehensive opening statement, cabinet secretary. How has the Scottish Government assessed likely reductions in the public funding that will be available to Scotland over the next few years?
I refer you to the report of the chief economic adviser, which was published about a fortnight ago. It takes as its starting point the details of the United Kingdom budget that was published in March 2010. It sets out in a dispassionate fashion the implications of the roll-out of public expenditure on the existing financial framework of Scotland.
The report makes a number of assumptions: that we will deliver economic growth that is consistent with trend economic growth over the past 30 years; that the distribution of changes to departmental expenditure limits at United Kingdom level is spread according to the perspective that is being expressed by the UK political parties about budget management, whereby certain aspects of public expenditure would be protected; that the impact in other areas is shared equally; and that the UK Government follows a programme of deficit reduction that absolutely adheres, as a minimum, to the terms of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010, which is now part of UK legislation. That last assumption must be a robust assumption, as it now has statutory force.
Taking all those factors into account, we have set out the perspective that we expect for public expenditure over the next few years—which essentially means that our budget will be about £1 billion lower in real terms each year up to 2013-14.
In annual terms, is that a reduction across the board of around 3 per cent?
It is of that order, yes.
So, given that there will be such a reduction, how will the Scottish Government prioritise future spending and future cuts in spending, and how does equality spending fit into the picture?
Before I answer that question, it is important to say that there are choices to be made about the distribution of decision making at the UK level. For example, in the area of health, as there is 100 per cent comparability in health expenditure in terms of the consequences of the Barnett formula, a boost in health spending in the UK has a consequential benefit for us. However, a budget reduction in areas in which we have 0 per cent comparability has no effect in Scotland. Although I have given you the chief economic adviser’s best estimate, that is not a definitive position; other choices could be arrived at that could result in our having a higher or, indeed, a lower budget. We will not know the detailed answers to those points until we have the financial information set out for 2011-12.
You asked how the Scottish Government will prioritise its work. We have commissioned the independent budget review, which will report in July. The review has been given a comprehensive remit; contributions have been invited from a range of organisations and players in Scotland and there has been a healthy response. Obviously, we have given the review committee a remit that reflects the outlook and perspective of the Scottish Government, which starts from the premise that we want to deliver a programme that supports our purpose of promoting sustainable economic growth, but which is also consistent with the Government’s approach to achieving the range of national outcomes that is set out in the national performance framework. Once the independent budget review material is in the public domain and we know what our perspective is in terms of the national outcomes, we will be able to see the shape of some of the prioritisation that we want to undertake.
On equalities expenditure, one of the helpful interventions that I will have will be a report from the equality and budget advisory group, which we expect to have in the summer. I am pleased with the progress that is being made in that regard, and that report will help to inform ministers’ decision making around the achievement of our outcomes.
That is helpful. In our lines of questioning, we hope to impress on you the fact that, although equalities spending can sometimes be seen as an easy cut to make, there is a huge economic advantage in maintaining that spending.
Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab)
What are your views on whether the only way to address economic difficulties is through cuts? Has the Scottish Government considered other levers, including raising more revenue through taxation or charging for services? Has it considered refocusing spending on early intervention and curative measures, which the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers suggested would reduce demand for services in the medium to long term?
I agree that other choices are before us. The Government has a political agenda that the Parliament should be equipped with a range of powers that would enable us to exercise greater flexibility on taxation in ways that would benefit the country. For example, Scotland could be extremely successful in—
10:15
I am sorry to interrupt, but it would be helpful for us if the discussion was kept to the remit and powers that we currently have. I am talking about the next year, not the long term.
I will come on to that, if members will allow me to place the matter in context.
The Government has a political agenda in wanting to expand the range of the Parliament’s powers to give it greater flexibility on economic issues. If we were able to generate more revenue as a consequence of higher economic growth in Scotland, we would not benefit from that, because that revenue would flow into the UK Government and the Barnett formula would not be adjusted to take account of it. That is part of the limitations of the current system, which the Government wants to change.
There are, of course, options available to the Government within the existing arrangements. We could use the tax-varying powers—for example, we could increase the basic rate of income tax by 3p in the pound. As the committee will be aware from the budget statement that was made in September last year, the Government has made it clear that we have no plans to take that action. It is clear that that is an option for any Administration, but it is unlikely that the Government will take that course of action. Obviously, options to increase charges for certain services could also be considered. I am sure that such questions will be considered in the discussion that we have as a consequence of the independent budget review.
Marlyn Glen asked about the refocusing of public expenditure. That is an interesting way of considering the challenge that we face. If the increase in money that any service is getting is used as the measure of the support that that service is being given, that will not give us much of a currency of debate when we are dealing with real-terms reductions in public expenditure. There have been annual and, in many cases, significant real-terms increases in public expenditure for the past 10 years, but it is pretty clear from the financial outlook that such increases will not happen in the years to come. The traditional measure of whether a service is doing well—whether it gets more money—will not give us much of a measurement of success or otherwise.
The key to the issue is perhaps in Marlyn Glen’s question about refocusing public services. There will be other ways of delivering public services that will deliver the same, if not better, outcomes. The question that the Government is always asking itself is whether we are achieving the necessary and required outcomes for the public in Scotland. Whether we are delivering better outcomes for the citizens of our country is the fundamental test for the Government of whether our expenditure is being used effectively and wisely. There are opportunities.
Marlyn Glen mentioned early intervention. The Government warmly accepts the importance of early intervention. In our term in office, we have taken a number of steps to work in partnership with our local authority colleagues to focus activity on increasing the effectiveness of early intervention work. We have also focused a great deal more on public health messages that can improve outcomes for individuals through early intervention. The previous Administration put a lot of effort into tackling smoking. The present Government is putting a lot of effort into tackling issues relating to substance abuse and alcohol, and is continuing the work on smoking cessation. Many messages about healthy living and exercise are designed to create a different profile of demand in the service.
A number of other interventions have been designed to keep people more active and mobile and ensure that they live a healthier lifestyle, and that can have a beneficial effect not only on demand for public services but on public expenditure, which after all tends to be pretty reactive once we get a problem on our hands. All that is very much in play and such thinking will be fundamental in working our way through what will be a challenging period.
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments outlining that kind of thinking. Obviously we need to consider the funding that is available and how we spend it, especially given that the budget has been increasing and is now more substantial than it was in 1999.
The referendum prior to the setting up of the Parliament asked two questions, one of which was on tax-varying powers. Given that the vote was substantially in favour of giving the Parliament those powers, why has the cabinet secretary categorically said that he will not use them? The Scottish people have made it clear—albeit in surveys or whatever—that if the choice came down to making cuts or using tax-varying powers they would be more keen to use the powers specifically for, say, health or education. Why has the cabinet secretary completely ruled out such an approach when the Parliament was given those powers as a result of the response to the second question in the referendum?
Again on tax-raising powers, the council tax freeze has become an issue. I know from my own circumstances, and from what my friends and family have said, that we would all rather pay a bit more council tax to ensure that at a local level society was not suffering and services were not being cut. Do you not think that it is time to revisit the freeze?
On the first question, I have set out the Government’s position: we have no plans to use tax-varying powers. I cannot see us doing that. A principal consideration is that we would want to avoid putting Scotland at a competitive tax disadvantage to the rest of the United Kingdom, which is what would happen if we had a higher basic income tax rate. The Government considers that such a situation would not be desirable.
A second consideration for the Scottish Government is that people are already—and will be—paying higher taxes as a result of decisions taken in a UK context. Of course, we are having this discussion in what you might call a rather fluid situation and some of those decisions might well be revisited after the election.
You asked about the council tax freeze. That measure has been fully supported and funded by the Government, which has made £70 million available in each of the financial years to compensate local authorities for any possible increase in council tax. That said, the Government will obviously have to make a range of decisions about various choices in the context of data that the UK Government provides with regard to the next spending review and the Parliament itself, as part of the budget act process, will take a final decision on all those questions.
The cabinet secretary says that the Government has fully funded the freeze, but I think that that is disputable.
I do not think that it is disputable. It is a matter of simple fact that we have put in place the resources to fully fund the council tax freeze. That is beyond question. Clearly, though, we rely on the consent of local authorities to enable us to bring it about, and I appreciate the co-operation that has emerged from them in that respect.
I return to refocusing spending. Witnesses have suggested that collaborative working and new technology can provide opportunities to improve service provision while reducing costs, as proposed in the Arbuthnott review of services in the Clyde valley. Are you examining spending in detail from that point of view?
Yes. A significant amount of work is being undertaken that involves groups of local authorities and public bodies in different parts of the country. Marlyn Glen cited the Clyde valley work and I very much welcome the work that Sir John Arbuthnott did for public authorities in the west of Scotland—that agenda is helpful. Such work is also being done in other parts of the country. In the east of Scotland, a cluster of local authorities and public bodies are working together, and in north-east Scotland, several bodies are working together. There are opportunities to make progress.
In some of our more peripheral areas—and particularly in island communities—the opportunity to break down the boundaries and barriers between public services has been taken effectively. That involves many helpful lessons about the delivery of public services in general.
The collaborative approach allows us a significant opportunity to deliver public services that achieve the outcomes that people in our communities want. If one followed the approach that Marlyn Glen has set out and it resulted in savings being achieved and services being provided for less, the challenge to which we would have to become accustomed in political discourse would be whether to embrace that, welcome that and say that that is good or whether to say that the budget is X per cent lower than the previous year, so it must be a disaster. Political debate must move on to accept that we can spend less money and deliver better outcomes. That will be a challenge for many people in the debate.
That will be a challenge for everybody but, as you know, we all—the Scottish Government and everybody else—have our own political agendas.
You did not mention new technology. Will you consider the use of that?
New technology is being deployed effectively in several ways. Yesterday, I saw housing support staff out with little palm-top devices to report on housing faults and issues that they had heard about directly from the public. They could have conversations with members of the public about housing and input issues into the system, on which action could be taken there and then. No paper or duplication of effort was involved. There are clear ways in which information technology can help us.
Can the Scottish Government learn any lessons from the recent economic crisis in Ireland and the Irish Government’s response to that?
As is obvious, the Republic of Ireland has taken decisions about its budget choices. The Scottish Government examines carefully the performance of different economies and jurisdictions. We will of course learn any appropriate lessons that apply to Scotland.
You do not have any details on that.
We have no specific mechanism in place to do that, but we will of course look at the issues that the Irish Government considered.
I hear what you say about budgets, but the committee is greatly concerned that one of the Irish Government’s responses was to cut the moneys for the Irish equalities commission. We would be concerned if such groups were to find difficulty with their budgets.
I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not think that that would be within the power of the Government, because I suspect that that organisation is funded by the United Kingdom Government.
10:30
I was just giving an example of what the Irish Government had done.
In respect of the various commissioners that operate in Scotland, the Government does not have control over those budgets; they are essentially controlled by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, whose budget is agreed by the Parliament.
The Irish commission budget was cut by 32 per cent. Would the Scottish commission come under our budget in any way, shape or form?
The Scottish Human Rights Commission is a parliamentary body, so any decision about it would be taken by the SPCB, whose budget is of course approved by the Parliament as part of parliamentary proceedings. It is not something that I control.
It is useful to tease out where such decisions would be made. Thank you.
Hugh O’Donnell (Central Scotland) (LD)
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a few questions, some of which have arisen from what you have said. Would you care to speculate on why it has taken the economic crisis that we all face and 14 years of our having 32 local authorities for those local authorities to realise that collaborative working is a good thing? Can the Government bring any pressure to bear to encourage more of it?
I invite you to look backwards over the Scottish Government’s expenditure. Can you think of any expenditure choices that the Government has made that might have had a negative impact on any equalities group?
On the first point about local authorities and collaborative working, I have made it pretty clear over the years that I think that Scotland has a bit of congestion in its governance structures, which is why I was so keen to pursue the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill to try to declutter the landscape. I am only sorry that I was not able to command the support of Mr O’Donnell and his colleagues for the passage of the bill, which enshrines significant opportunities to declutter Scotland’s public sector landscape and ensure that there is more collaborative working of the type that he encourages me to support.
From the start of this Administration, I made it clear that we wanted a much greater focus on the work of community planning partnerships locally, which I think were largely moribund when we came into office. Mr O’Donnell asked what pressure we can apply. Believe you me, I have applied a lot of pressure to ensure that community planning partnerships are more substantial forums for discussions about duplication, overlap and the protection of institutional barriers between different players in the public sector, which I acknowledge is a factor with which we have to wrestle. The community planning partnerships are now operating much more effectively at the local level. They are collaborative in their very genesis, with local authorities, health boards, police authorities, fire and rescue authorities and various other players, including the third sector, all being involved.
Those mechanisms are where I see the opportunity to deliver better collaborative working. If people sit around the table in CPPs with a determined attitude to protect their budget and territory, we will not make much progress. People have to be open and frank and they have to confront duplication. There are a number of examples from different parts of the country where, as a result of people from the same area looking at what the health board and the local authority do, opportunities for service improvement have been found. That is the type of approach that we have to take more often. The whole sense of that way of working is now much more deeply entrenched in Scotland. It provides us with a good foundation to meet the challenges in the period going forward.
Mr O’Donnell asked me to identify any aspects of Government expenditure that have not been worth while. I cannot possibly find anything to say to him in that respect, but I am sure that he will have some suggestions.
Let me clarify my question, which relates to the committee’s equalities agenda. Looking backwards, can we see any expenditure decisions that perhaps had a negative impact on equalities groups? I have in mind the example of the Barnett consequentials of £2.9 million from the migration impacts fund. According to correspondence that I have received from other ministers, that money was absorbed into the mainstream Government budget rather than given to support immigration groups across Scotland.
It is helpful to consider a specific example, but in a sense that example rather makes my point about spending decisions. When we receive the appropriate budget consequentials as a result of a UK Government spending stream, the challenge for us is to examine that resource critically to determine whether new services need to be designed to meet the need that, from a UK Government perspective, exists. My contention is that we already had in place a range of appropriate services to support people in that context, so there was no need for us to deploy the additional expenditure directly in that fashion.
When we receive our settlement from the UK Government, we are not obliged simply to mirror UK Government expenditure. Given our far more developed approach to public expenditure in some areas, when the UK Government makes a decision in a devolved area that involves Barnett consequentials, it would be inappropriate for us simply to spend the money in the same area if that would simply duplicate our existing expenditure. As Mr O’Donnell will appreciate, we have countless opportunities to spend public money on a whole variety of different issues. The Scottish Government needs to make a judgment on the most appropriate way to spend that money.
I would generally agree with that view, but it just struck me as unusual that, although the Scottish Government received that particular tranche of money, funding for organisations that support immigrants was cut.
Let me move on to the more general question, which ties into the cabinet secretary’s earlier point about the voluntary sector. Evidence that we received, which the cabinet secretary has no doubt had sight of, suggests that a positive impact or economic benefit can result from pursuing the equalities agenda. For example, the UK Government’s “Equality Bill Impact Assessment” extrapolates that the economic benefit of applying that equalities legislation could be up to £600 million in the longer term. Such benefits might arise from, for example, supporting independent living. However, as the cabinet secretary will be aware, various of our local authorities have queues of people who are waiting to be assessed for funding for independent living, even though such support would provide an economic benefit in the longer term. In evidence to the committee, Liz Rowlett suggested that many councils are applying cuts to various aspects of early intervention. Local authorities seem almost to be retreating to a position of fulfilling only their statutory duties. Therefore—this is the point that I am trying to get to—how do we prevent the valuable role that the third sector plays from being an easy target for cuts, given the substantial body of evidence that suggests that pursuing the equalities agenda has a positive economic benefit in the long term?
I hope that that was not too long-winded a way of getting to my question.
I know exactly what Mr O’Donnell is getting at, and I am largely in agreement with him.
In the assessment of the public spending challenge that the chief economic adviser set out, we have essentially tried to indicate that the public spending problem will be with us not just for a year.
One of the great ironies of the assessment of the public expenditure plans of the Conservative Government in 1979 is the public perception that there were a number of years of real-terms reductions in public expenditure, when there was actually only one. The analysis that the chief economic adviser set out, which is based on Treasury data, suggests that the real-terms reductions in public expenditure will go on for some years. There is no quick-fix, salami-slice approach that will address the challenges, and in some circumstances—in a number of circumstances, I contend—we will need to look at service redesign.
Mr O’Donnell’s point about independent living is a substantial one about putting in place mechanisms that will enable us to deliver over a greater number of years the best outcomes for people with disabilities in our society. However, we will need to do that through a different model. The fact that we will have a sustained public spending challenge for a number of years means that public authorities will have no alternative but to focus on questions such as the one that Mr O’Donnell has raised, because we must find ways of meeting the challenge. Not only do we face a public spending challenge, but we have a demography challenge and a need challenge. We are all living longer, and people with disabilities require support for longer. We must therefore find sustainable and effective ways of providing such support.
I have seen many examples around the country, which are a joy to see, of people with severe disabilities being able, with the correct intervention, to flourish in a model of care that they find liberating, inspiring and rejuvenating. They end up in a much better position than they were in with the previous model of care. The new model will be the required direction of thinking, and that is reflected in the thinking that the committee has heard about the joint work between the Government and local authorities to try to tackle some of the current questions.
Thank you for that.
I am sure that before you came to give evidence you would have either read the evidence that we have been given thus far or, at the very least, been extremely well briefed on it, so I am sure that you know that it contains some criticism of the concordat between the Scottish Government and local government. For example, the Scottish women’s budget group told the committee that it is concerned about
“the absence of equality analysis and equality narrative in the single outcome agreements” —[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 23 March 2010; c 1569.]
since their inception. There are other examples—that is just one. I invite you to comment on the criticisms of the concordat and the single outcome agreements with regard to equalities issues, and on what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that equalities issues are reflected more fully in all single outcome agreements.
Clearly, I have seen the criticisms of the concordat. However, I am a staunch defender of the concordat because, whatever its limitations, it is a much better way of working than the relationship that existed between national Government and local government for, broadly, most of the past 20 years and certainly for about 15 years before the concordat was put in place. I say that because the concordat enables us to do exactly what Mr O’Donnell talked about, which is to focus all aspects of public sector activity on a shared set of outcomes.
One of the big criticisms of government—I mean not the Scottish Government, but government with a small g—is that it ends up pointing people in a multiplicity of directions: to a local authority agenda that is over here; to a Government agenda that is over there; and to a quango agenda that is somewhere else. The concordat supports the national performance framework and focuses everybody on the same approach. That is its principal strength.
10:45
Elaine Smith asked about the equalities position in the concordat. The equalities agenda must be central to much of that activity. There is a statutory obligation on local authorities to honour their equality duties, just as there is an obligation on ministers to do so, and we must ensure that we get that right. The concordat and the single outcome agreements are still a relatively new development. I am certain that focusing the single outcome agreements on the achievement of the national outcomes will give us the necessary focus on the equalities agenda, which is at the heart of the national outcomes that we have set out.
Progress is being made. Nevertheless, we must constantly address the questions about support for vulnerable groups and individuals and their position within the policy agenda, so that we take due account of the need to support those people.
Yes, but the nature of the concordat might make it difficult for you to get your priorities reflected. For example, we have received evidence that
“Out of the 32 local authorities, only 14 include tackling violence against women/domestic abuse as a priority”,
although I am sure that the Scottish Government considers that a priority. How can you influence local authorities’ priorities through the concordat and the single outcome agreements?
That gets to the nub of the relationship between national Government and local government. I have two key points to make. First, the current Administration takes the view that local authorities should be empowered to take forward the agenda in their localities. If people do not like what their local authority does, it is pretty obvious what they can do about that at the next election. The Government does not take the view that we are in a position—nor should we be in a position—to direct or dictate to local authorities in all aspects of their functions. There is a fundamental difference between the roles of local government and national Government.
But what happens to the Scottish Government’s priorities? How are those reflected by local authorities?
We agree with local government the issues on which we will concentrate and the outcomes that we will try to achieve. That is all set out in the national outcomes. Your question brings me to my second point, which is that we have had some problems with the perception of single outcome agreements. Single outcome agreements do not need to be an encyclopaedia of everything that a local authority is doing. Local authorities will do things that do not feature in single outcome agreements but which are part of the agenda that they are taking forward in their areas. That is a fundamental characteristic of the nature of single outcome agreements and what we expect to achieve as a result of them.
I would be surprised if every local authority in Scotland were not actively involved in providing support for women who have been the victims of domestic abuse. The fact that that does not feature in the single outcome agreements does not mean that it is not happening.
Scottish Women’s Aid, in its evidence, said that it had found
“little evidence of effective equality impact assessment or gender analysis”
of the single outcome agreements. It is not the committee or me putting that to you—it is the evidence that we have received.
That is a slightly different point from the one that I am making. My point is that I would be surprised if all local authorities were not involved in supporting women who are the victims of domestic abuse. The question about whether equality impact assessments have been carried out is essentially one for local authorities, because they are under a statutory duty to make sure that such approaches are taken.
The evidence in our briefing is:
“Out of the 32 local authorities, only 14 include tackling violence against women/domestic abuse as a priority and have more than one action planned to achieve this priority.”
Therefore, only 14 local authorities have more than one action planned.
We are saying that there are, perhaps, some difficulties here—perhaps because the system is new. Let me put it another way. What are some of the positive benefits of the concordat for equalities groups?
The concordat has delivered, across the country, greater involvement of third sector organisations in the formulation of the community planning agenda. I apologise if I have recounted the following tale to the committee before. I had an encounter with the chief executive of the voluntary service in Shetland, who said that she had a sense of absolute horror when she heard my proposals on single outcome agreements, the concordat and empowering local authorities. However, as a consequence of those proposals, she has a seat on the community planning partnership, where she is an equal partner. She recounted to me her ability to have much greater influence than she ever had at any stage in the past. She can ensure that when the community planning partnership is discussing service delivery and the achievement of an outcome, that is not an internal conversation between public sector partners but a conversation involving the third sector into the bargain. The third sector can say that there are different ways of designing that service in which it can play a role.
I am not trying to suggest to the committee that all the arrangements in every part of the country will be as perfect as that example, but it shows what we should be doing. One important way of addressing the issue, which Mr O’Donnell raised, is to have a conversation with the third sector about how it can help the public sector to meet some of the challenges. We all know that costs increase dramatically the minute somebody walks through the door of a public sector institution. That is not a criticism—it is a fact of life. We have to make sure that we provide people with support. In some cases, support will be best deployed in people’s homes, without their having to come anywhere near a public sector institution. In that way, they should end up getting a better outcome and the public sector should be able to deliver services more efficiently.
Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP)
Concerns have been raised in evidence to the committee about whether the extended equality duties in the UK Equality Bill can be achieved during a period of financial squeeze such as this. The real reason for concern is that the vulnerable groups and individuals who are supposed to be protected by the extended duties in the Equality Bill are, inevitably, those who are most at risk when there is an economic slump. Does the Scottish Government have a way of ensuring that the equality duties are met? How can that be done at a time of financial cutbacks?
The Equality Bill has now been passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. We undertook a consultation on the new duties that closed on 15 January and brought in 160 responses, which we are analysing. That will help us to formulate the approach that is taken to fulfilling the equality duties. Having had such a broad response to that consultation, we have a pretty good information base about some of the challenges that exist.
On the challenge of delivering on the duties, we have to accept that there will be fiscal constraints, but we should not take the view that that means that no progress can be made. In response to Mr O’Donnell, I suggested that we need to absorb into our thinking new ways of working and new ways of operating. The fulfilment of the equality duties will be part of that work, so that we bring that aspect into the general approach that we take to the design and delivery of public services.
In its evidence to the committee SOLACE described a number of initiatives, such as training for staff and members in equality components and, for example, revamping committee papers—which is particularly relevant to the committee system in the Parliament—so that every policy or decision is assessed for its potential equality impact. Is there a role for such an approach?
Without any disrespect, such approaches have to become routine—they must become part of the process that we undertake to ensure that we fulfil the equality duties. Incorporating the matter into the thinking and design of our policy approaches seems to be a very efficient way of doing that.
The committee has heard concerns, not only from SOLACE but from a number of organisations, that mainstreaming of equalities has not yet entered the mindset of local and public authorities. How will the Scottish Government ensure that all those authorities fulfil their statutory equality duties at a time of austerity?
SOLACE’s remarks will be more of a comment about the fact that this is work in progress rather than a suggestion that no progress is being made. I think that progress is being made and that there is much more evidence of the duties being more firmly entrenched in policy processes than was the case in the past. We obviously need to encourage that, and to continue to encourage it. There will be statutory monitoring aspects to ensure that we can tabulate whether progress is being made. Obviously, the Government will be happy to undertake that work.
Christina McKelvie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Good morning, cabinet secretary. The Scottish Government’s annual gender equality report states that Scottish ministers will report on priority areas, one of which is to tackle violence against women. In the current climate of decreasing budgets, given that it costs about £4 billion a year to deal with the issue in terms of housing, health, police and other costs, as well as its personal and emotional costs, what work is the Scottish Government doing with local authorities to ensure that the issue remains a priority for them?
Christina McKelvie’s point about the total cost of such activity touches on the point that Mr O’Donnell and Marlyn Glen made about trying to tackle root causes. We can and should put in place the services to pick up the pieces—we must do that and the Government will continue to do it—but one heck of a lot of heartache must be gone through before we get anywhere near to picking up the pieces. Therefore, tackling the causes is a fundamental focus of the Government, which is why we are so adamant that we must make progress on the alcohol abuse question. I do not have statistics in front of me, but I would be staggered if the overwhelming majority of domestic abuse cases were not driven by alcohol.
11:00
The importance of ensuring that we take action to tackle the problems right across the policy agenda is significant. That joined-up agenda, which involves providing support to women who have had that terrible experience and who require support, will continue to be part of the Government’s work. We will also tackle numerous other aspects in trying to reduce the incidence of domestic abuse, which will be part of the agenda for tackling alcohol abuse, and we will ensure through communication that there is public awareness of domestic abuse so that women feel that they have the opportunity and support to face up to the difficulties that they are experiencing.
I beg the convener’s indulgence to ask an additional question. We heard recently that some funding and support was given to services for domestic violence against men, which seems to be an increasing problem. Will you update us on the work that is being done to reduce violence against men, as well as violence against women, and on how you see that tying in with education? You are absolutely right that prevention is better than cure—and much cheaper, in the long term.
The Minister for Housing and Communities, Mr Neil, set out the Government’s agenda in that respect. He made clear the importance of acknowledging that there is domestic violence against men. In no way does that suggest that domestic abuse against women does not require attention—of course it does—but the programme was set up to acknowledge that violence against men has to be addressed. Most of the work’s focus is on the establishment of a helpline, which is to encourage men who are affected to acknowledge it and then to seek the assistance that is in place. Support will be offered to individuals in that situation.
What type of work is being done with local authorities to ensure that the priority of working on both men’s violence against women and women’s violence against men is maintained?
I am happy to ensure that the committee is given full information on that.
That is brilliant. Thank you very much.
Under the gender equality duty, where are we on the thorny issue of equal pay and the gender pay gap, given that we have established that there are worrying statistics about the number of outstanding cases?
I do not have in front of me statistics on the number of local authorities that have concluded their equal pay arrangements. The last time I saw such data, 26 of 32 authorities had completed the arrangements, but I am pretty confident that the number is higher now. Obviously, the Government is encouraging authorities to work towards completion of the process. The Local Government and Communities Committee has considered the issue in some detail and the Government has responded constructively to the committee’s points and suggestions.
If you can give us an update, we would be pleased to receive it.
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
One of the issues that has come up quite a lot in evidence is the financial challenges that come with an ageing population, although we also recognise the opportunities that it provides and we recognise older people’s contribution. That said, there will be a big increase in the number of over-75s and an even more significant increase in the number of over-85s, which is bound to have financial implications for care and other services.
The fundamental question is about what planning the Government is doing. You have already talked about redesigning services, which is part of that. Is preventive action also part of it? The tendency already is that a lot of money goes on crisis intervention—for example, on emergency admissions to hospital. When money gets tighter, the tendency could be to focus all the money on crisis intervention, but that will not really fit the bill. What is the Government’s thinking on redesign and early intervention so that some crises do not happen in the first place?
We have been over some of that ground already. I accept entirely the importance of early intervention. On several issues, particularly in relation to the health and wellbeing agenda, the Government is taking a range of steps to try to avoid treating only the symptoms rather than the causes of ill-health. I make no apology for mentioning alcohol again: it is at the heart of many of the health and wellbeing difficulties that the country faces. The impact of alcohol abuse on public services is clear. Ambulances that go to pick up people who have consumed too much alcohol cannot also go to pick up people who have had heart attacks. The simple reality is that we, as a country, must face up to the need to tackle our very unhealthy relationship with alcohol.
There are other messages about exercise and individuals taking responsibility for their health. The Government is promoting that because, obviously, people who exercise more and who manage their weight and diet will be less dependent on health services. We can take a range of early intervention measures in that respect. However, we need to examine the design of our elderly care services, because we have to address the point that Mr Chisholm makes about the impact of demography. That work is under way as part of a joint effort between the Government, the national health service in Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. A ministerial strategic group that is chaired by the Minister for Public Health and Sport is working on that joint project on reshaping care for older people. That project is considering exactly the question that Mr Chisholm asked.
Other work will be done on the balance of care in order that we can ensure that we take due account of the importance of early intervention rather than just acute intervention. We all appreciate that acute intervention is significantly more expensive than early intervention.
I agree with the cabinet secretary’s points, but what assessment has the Government made of the financial implications? Part of the problem is that the policies are right, but the changes are not happening. For example, although we have been talking for several years about reducing emergency admissions, they are still increasing. How confident are you that changes will take place? How will you assess the financial implications of the ageing population, even if you can achieve all those desirable redesign and preventive measures?
The significant demographic change is a challenge. Obviously, the answers depend on how far forward we look—the situation will become more challenging as the years go by. However, we can make gains through the impact of early intervention. We are absolutely scratching the surface of that. That requires professionals to lead and individuals to respond. It is a major challenge in the Government’s approaches on healthy living and on shaping services for older people. We have a huge opportunity to make more progress, but that will be delivered only if we have in place an effective collaborative framework among various public bodies. No one public body can achieve that on its own and no grouping of public authorities can do it without the active participation of members of the public.
I suppose that the financial difficulties may be a driver for bringing about some of the changes. However, the question that always arises—it has come across in the evidence that we have taken already—is the extent to which the welcome and widely accepted universal benefits that older people in Scotland enjoy may be under threat, given the changing demographic and the financial challenges that are associated with that. To what extent does the Government have that in the back of its mind, or are those areas non-negotiable and not even to be considered?
The Government is absolutely committed to maintaining the range of benefits through which we support older people. The protection and maintenance of those programmes will be central to the Government’s thinking as it meets the financial challenges that lie ahead.
Shirley-Anne Somerville (Lothians) (SNP)
Good morning, cabinet secretary. The inclusion of the equality statement in the 2010-11 draft budget was warmly welcomed, but many recommendations were made about how it could be improved in future years. Can you update the committee on how the next budget equality statement will be an improvement and how lessons have been learned from comments on the initial statement?
We have made some progress on the matter. I am glad that the statement has been welcomed. The equality and budget advisory group has contributed a great deal to our thinking.
One of the difficulties that we have faced is the fact that, when the current Administration came to office, we had very little time in which to address the issue or to incorporate much of the thinking on it before we had to formulate our spending plans for this spending review period. As I said earlier, we will receive a report from the equality and budget advisory group in the summer, which I intend to make available to the independent budget review. I will also pursue discussions with the group, once the report is published and the independent budget review has been published, to determine how we can configure our interventions directly to respond positively to the report from EBAG.
We will have a real opportunity over the summer to engage in discussion with EBAG on those questions. I look forward to that and intend to meet the equality and budget advisory group to hear its input and ensure that we have a firm understanding of how we can meet some of the challenges that it sets out.
In previous committee meetings, the point was made that there is a lack of good data to enable decisions to be made comprehensively and effectively. How is that being dealt with so that we can base our decisions on sound knowledge?
We must ensure that we have in place all the data sets that we require in order to form our judgments effectively. That work is done routinely as we try to strengthen the content of the national performance framework. We are incrementally strengthening the database that lies underneath, which enables us to assess whether performance is effective. That work is on-going and will continue in order that we have the information to enable us to make appropriate judgments.
Another issue that has come up in evidence is the fact that equality impact is sometimes analysed near the end of the process rather than at the beginning, when the policy priorities are set. Will that also be discussed by the equality and budget advisory group?
11:15
That relates to my point about the advantage of the situation this time round. We will have the report from the equality and budget advisory group in the summer and my officials and I will be able to discuss that and the implications of some of our work before we reach any conclusion about the implications of the spending review. I think it unlikely that I will receive the output of the UK comprehensive spending review any earlier than October, so we will have an opportunity to consider some of these questions within the overall framework. That is exactly what we are willing to do.
Can I raise a couple of issues with the cabinet secretary before he leaves?
You will have to be very brief.
First, is the funding for the men’s domestic abuse helpline coming out of funding for women’s services or is it new money? What analysis has been done on that matter? As we know, some instances of domestic abuse against men are recorded as counterallegations to allegations of domestic abuse that women have made. Finally, the cabinet secretary mentioned alcohol in relation to domestic abuse. We must be very careful not to give the impression that domestic abuse is all down to alcohol; in actual fact, it is about power and control by men over women and spans all socioeconomic groups. It is not simply confined to alcohol-fuelled situations at the weekend.
On the final point, I was advancing the argument that we cannot ignore the influence of alcohol in many cases. Indeed, it is at the root of many difficulties in our society. I am in no way trying to excuse instances of domestic abuse; I am simply saying that alcohol is a factor and that, if we tackle that, we will help to tackle domestic abuse. Of course, there will still be cases of domestic abuse that have nothing to do with alcohol and everything to do with control and power, and such behaviour is completely unacceptable.
On the question of calls to the men’s domestic abuse helpline and the issue of counterallegations, we will know the answer to that only when we have the information. I am sure that that will be part of the assessment that will be undertaken.
As for your first question, I consider the financial support for the helpline for men affected by domestic abuse to be new money. However, if I need to advise the committee about anything else in that respect, I will do so in due course.
That completes our line of questioning. One strong theme that has emerged this morning is the lack of data—indeed, local government witnesses have said that authorities are short of such information. As has been pointed out, the third sector is a very good source in that respect. We would very much welcome any information that you can supply on equal pay in local government. Would it be possible to get an update on equal pay in the national health service, too? That is another area on which the committee focused last year.
Yes.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his evidence. I suspend the meeting briefly to allow a change of witnesses.
11:18
Meeting suspended.
11:22
On resuming—