Budget Process 2002-03
I welcome Sue Robertson and Jeanette Timmins from Engender women's budget group, and Dharmendra Kanani and Lucy Chapman from the Commission for Racial Equality. I apologise for the fact that they have been kept waiting—our very interesting evidence session with young Gypsy/Travellers ran on.
Members have a copy of the Engender women's budget group response to the budget, so the witnesses should give a short presentation before the committee asks questions.
Sue Robertson (Engender):
I have passed round copies of the summary points to which I will speak.
We are pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the committee on this subject. We recognise that the spending plans are work in progress, but we are disappointed that they contain so little reference to equality. There is no reference to equality or gender equality in the overall objectives or the departmental objectives. Equality is dealt with in a separate section with the voluntary sector, at the end of the spending plans, so it has been sidelined. There has been an increase in the budget for equality from last year to this, but then the budget is static. The fact that no extra money is devoted to the equality strategy raises questions about it.
A general point about presentation is that expenditure is given in absolute amounts of money, so it is difficult to assess amounts in the spending programmes for individual departments. No percentages are given. Percentages would allow people to see what priority has been given to different programmes—one programme might be receiving a 10 per cent increase while another was receiving a 1 per cent increase. That information is not given, so readers have to work it out for themselves.
Another general point about the presentation of the spending plans is that the level of detail in objectives and targets varies enormously. Some sections give precise objectives and targets—for example, the spending plans for justice show so many weeks of training for fire service personnel—but other sections are vague and contain statements of intention, with no way of measuring whether those intentions are achieved.
I have highlighted in the summary a few specific points about the spending plans, which are also covered in our more in-depth submission. In education, the only mention of gender equality is a statement that there will be measures to make education inclusive. The spending plans talk about
"supporting equal opportunities, pupil welfare, anti-bullying and developing a positive ethos in schools".
No objectives or targets are given. There is just a general wish for education to be more inclusive, but it is not clear how that will be achieved and how much money will be devoted to it.
The spending plans state that the Executive will invest £3.6 million in the child care strategy, but there are no targets for the number of places. Improving the qualifications of child care workers is mentioned, but there is no reference to the gender of those workers. That is a major issue, as the sector is predominantly staffed by females.
Similarly, in enterprise and lifelong learning, there are specific targets for business start-ups and modern apprenticeships, but there is no gender analysis. Both those targets are likely to be of benefit predominantly to males. The targets for higher education are given in terms of percentage of participation from particular neighbourhoods or socioeconomic groups. There is no mention of gender, so there is no way of checking whether more women are being encouraged to go back into education, which could be a crucial issue. Nor is there any mention of promoting equal opportunities in terms of what students are studying or the pay and conditions of staff.
Finally, in the spending plans for social justice, there is no reference to gender in the discussion of social inclusion and no explicit provision for things such as people's juries or panels to take account of equal opportunities issues.
There is a long way to go in analysing the spending plans in terms of gender impact.
Jeanette Timmins (Engender):
Briefly, our overall feeling is of deep disappointment that, given all the joint working that has taken place over the years to ensure equality of opportunity in respect of gender, such as in the consultative steering group, which looked at how the Parliament would operate for the first couple of years, a commitment to gender awareness—never mind gender equality—is so visibly lacking in the budget document. After the support that was given to the women's budget group, and after the many seminars that have taken place over the years—especially in the past few months—it is disappointing how few objectives and targets are highlighted within the spending plans. Given that the budget's key theme is social justice, it is important to recognise that an opportunity to deal with that topic in a way that is fair to men and to women seems to have been missed.
The equality strategy, which was published recently, has a clear action plan to develop mechanisms for equality, such as impact assessments of budgets and spending plans. It looks at dates and outcomes. We are disappointed that the equality strategy has not been built into the budget process. We thought that the Engender budget group's response to last year's proposed budget and to the "Investing in You" document would have given the Parliament an opportunity to build in some of those issues to this year's spending plans. We are deeply disappointed that that opportunity has not been taken.
We are disappointed that the budget document has no gender-specific objectives or targets. The question that must be asked of each budget line or department is this: in what ways are the policies—and, more important, the resource allocations—likely to reduce or increase gender inequalities? The budget document has no way of showing that and has no method of trying to ensure that that question can be answered with a yes or no.
We need to recognise that a high level of commitment and co-ordination is needed throughout the Parliament—and throughout the public services in general—to undertake an assessment of the gender impact of line-by-line budgets. The research advisory group's work on mainstreaming equality in public policy is on-going. We hope that there are people beavering away in the background and working on those very issues. However, if gender issues are not specifically mentioned in the spending plans, we must assume that they are not in the thinking.
Dharmendra Kanani or Lucy Chapman may make an opening statement now. We will then ask questions of all the witnesses, as if they were a panel, to avoid having to repeat the questions with both sets of witnesses.
Dharmendra Kanani (Commission for Racial Equality):
I thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to give evidence on the budget. We have not made a written response to the budget, but we use this opportunity to flag up some key concerns.
One of the key points that we want to raise is that, given the absence of a clear line of spend against equality issues, it is difficult to secure a route to scrutinising the budget for racial equality and other equality issues. That is a huge difficulty for all agencies—including the CRE—that are trying to make sense of the budget.
Notwithstanding that, we welcome the fact that we have an opportunity to comment on the budget. It is excellent that the budget development process gives an opportunity to discuss, comment and come back on the various stages of development. We also welcome the First Minister's comment about ensuring that social justice underpins the budget building process. In future—at least after the first session—we hope that the budget will build equality considerations firmly into spending plans. We see this early stage of the budget building process as a process of incremental change and development.
I draw the committee's attention to the new environment that we are operating in, as far as racial equality is concerned. The Race Relations Act (Amendment) 2000 placed a new duty on all public authorities proactively to promote racial equality and avoid racial discrimination. That general duty applies to the Scottish Executive. We regard the budget building exercise as a function of the Executive, but the budget document pays scant attention to ensuring that racial equality is firmly woven into that public function. We would like that issue to go back to the Executive and to be considered more thoroughly. The amendment was won through hard battle and we would like to see the evidence of how the budget identifies and works through that issue.
We also want to draw the committee's attention to the "Review of the Funding for Black and Minority Ethnic Groups in the Voluntary Sector", which was concluded earlier this year. I am not sure whether members have come across that review, which was led by Jackie Baillie as Minister for Social Justice. The document is out for consultation and comments must be back by July. The review is interesting because it provides a snapshot of where funding comes from for ethnic minorities in the voluntary sector. Page 67 of the review document—which, I ask members to note, was funded by the Scottish Executive—says:
"In terms of the strategic issues, the following conclusions can be drawn:
There is a current focus in Scotland, in the Scottish Executive and Parliament, on promoting equality and tackling social exclusion. Within this, there is a specific focus on race equality which is also consistent with the overall objectives of many local authorities. This does not yet appear, however, to be reflected in the pattern of grant provision evident from the findings of this research".
Clearly, even Government-sponsored research shows that there is no consistent approach to funding around equality issues, let alone racial equality concerns.
That is an overview of some of our key concerns. On specifics, there is a lack of information available to ascertain what spending is needed for racial equality, and, in particular, what problems need to be identified through the spending plans. Currently, there is a paucity of information on economic activity, on housing conditions, on benefit take-up, and on a whole range of social policy issues. As a result of that absence of information, we are not clear about how the budget will tackle some of those major issues.
We look forward to the Scottish household survey, which, we hope, will establish a benchmark for spending. The household survey should be related to the Scottish Executive's spending plans. It is important that we take that on board quite radically.
When the committee considers the way forward, it might want to consider the argument that has been made by my colleagues from Engender and by sister equality agencies. If what one wants to achieve through one's policy intentions on racial equality and equality per se is not factored into the budget building processes, one will end up with the same-old same old. Most members of the committee will know what I mean by that. I mean that when local government is asked to engage in a positive action exercise or to ensure that disability issues are addressed effectively, the first response will be, "We do not have the money for that", or "We do not have the resources for that". When we speak to certain education providers about access to, for example, courses in English as a second language, the issue is about budgets. If we talk about housing provision, or positive action processes within housing, the question returns to budgets. If the policy intention is to weave social justice and equality into the mainframe of governance and social policy issues across Scotland, it is absolutely critical that equality issues are woven in explicitly, so that we can fend off the arguments about lack of money.
The Commission for Racial Equality will look at how the Executive and a range of public authorities ensure that the duties that will be placed on them by the Race Relations Act (Amendment) 2000 are factored into their spending plans. We will look at how they assess the impact of their policy on racial equality and at whether the training that is provided to staff ensures that services are taken up. We will want to know how policy appraisals will be done and how ethnic monitoring will be achieved.
One of the key issues in the Scottish public sector is how to meet the language needs of a range of communities—not only asylum-seeking communities but other ethnic minority communities. That issue has huge implications on resources. The budget building exercise must not only support and enable public authorities to meet their requirements, but ensure that services are provided adequately and equitably across the board.
Members will know that in 1999, together with the Equal Opportunities Commission, we produced a checklist for MSPs on how to mainstream equalities within all policy matters that members consider. I would like members to revisit the checklist in view of the Scottish budget plans and to ask some of the questions that it lists: what is the policy for, who is it for, what are the desired and anticipated outcomes—[Interruption.] I hope that the microphones did not fall over in reaction to the questioning process.
We will adjourn the meeting until the sound system has been sorted out.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
We can restart the meeting.
I will conclude in a moment—I do not want to give the sound system another opportunity to go.
As I said, I would like the committee to revisit the checklist in its response to other committees. It is important that the budget process be scrutinised effectively. If it is not, there will be no change of practice regarding equality matters. How does equality spending feature in the budget of this committee and in that of the department that you are responsible for scrutinising in terms of accessing communities of interest? That question needs to be asked.
We will give the committee some information on the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and the guidance that we have produced on the general duty for public authorities to promote racial equality.
Almost from the outset of this committee's work, organisations have come to us saying that their biggest problem is lack of information. Again, we are in the middle of a budget process but the documents that are being produced as part of that process fail to mention equality. If equality is noticed only by its absence, how can the success of the budget process in ensuring equality be measured?
Two areas are relevant to measuring success. An analysis of spending must be conducted in relation to its impact on equality groups. For example, if a certain amount is being spent on business start-ups, an investigation should be conducted into how many of those start-ups involve men, how many involve women and what the impact is on racial equality and the equality of other groups. That would allow us to determine whether the needs of the relevant communities are being met.
Policies should also be inspected to determine whether they will address some of the disadvantages that groups face. For example, we should examine whether more women are able to access higher education so that we can find out the extent to which women are disadvantaged in educational terms. The objectives of the policies must be framed in terms of the equality strategy. In education, the policies are crudely framed in terms of neighbourhoods and social groups, which does not measure the other dimensions of equality that we have been talking about today.
Success can be measured only by asking the views of the people whom you hope will be affected by spending plans. As I said, attempting to get a true reflection of the situation would be a fairly large exercise. If you ask how the spending plans of the Parliament or local authorities impact on various people, you will get various answers across the board. If a group of women and a group of men are asked to pretend that they are the Minister for Finance for a day, they will produce two differing budgets.
Some of what I am saying is anecdotal, but much of the research that has been done on equality of opportunity and community empowerment is contained in a document that was commissioned by the Scottish Executive, "Women's Issues in Local Partnership Working". The document shows that there is no commitment on the part of the social inclusion partnerships to target spending on women. Many women sit on the SIP boards and there is a perception that, if that is the case, women's issues are being dealt with. However, if women in communities are asked about how the policies are affecting them, you will hear that that is not the case.
It is true that it is hard to make judgments when there is a lack of information, but the overarching point that we want to make today is that, if you do not state specifically that your intention is to ensure equality across the board, it will be difficult to ascertain the answers without a great deal of work. People must be asked directly.
The process of gathering information has been started. The Executive has produced one issue of "Men and Women in Scotland A Statistical Profile, which follows on from the work that Engender had done with the gender audit, but that needs to be an on-going process. We need to have information not only about gender, but about the other equality groups within that.
There are examples of that process being implemented in other countries and of the equality agenda being built in to the budgeting process. That is what we are trying to bring into the thinking in Scotland.
We acknowledge the fact that the process is incremental. That cannot be avoided. An important starting point is the fact that our budget building process is more inclusive than that of other places. It is also important that a statement has been made that social justice is supposed to underpin the overall process.
Equality is relative: the starting point of the people whom I represent is lower than that of gender-based groups, because less information is available about the life chances and economic circumstances of ethnic minority communities in Scotland than is available about such issues in relation to women. Information has to be monitored across the board so that we can determine the ways in which public expenditure is affecting the life chances of those people. We need to have a range of performance indicators. For instance, in relation to local government, we need to know whether council leaders, chief executives and others are examining equality spend.
What is notable in the Scottish Executive's budget planning process is that, although there is a radical equality strategy over a period of time, there is no budget allocation associated with it. It is excellent that such a strategy exists, but we cannot say what its impact will be if there is no spend associated with it. I am aware, however, that the equality-proofing mechanisms that have been established, particularly those that are associated with the round table group, will have an impact on how we measure success.
The equality-proofing group is considering conducting a survey of Scottish Executive expenditure, but we are concerned that nearly three quarters of that expenditure is spent by local authorities, health boards and so on. Given that, we would like a review to investigate whether local authorities and health boards factor in equality issues to their work. Do they know how to? How can that process be enabled? For elected members and officers, the notion of equality-proofing budgets and assessing their impact on equality issues might seem to be too far removed from the detail of such things as refuse collection and debt collection. We need to find a way of engaging people around the issue in a more interactive way.
I have one further question—one that I have put to other organisations that have given evidence. Given the concerns and issues that you raise, would there be value in establishing a single equality commission similar to that in Northern Ireland? Would that help to address the concerns that you raise?
When a commission or group is set up to consider a particular issue, it can be distracting. There is the time factor: while the commission is considering whatever issues, life is still going on. It would be better to ensure that the principles behind the setting up of this Parliament—the principles laid down by the consultative steering group—were developed. The commitments on equality of opportunity that were signed up to when the Parliament started should be in-built. That will be a long-drawn-out process. We are trying to change people's attitudes. That has been evident in the budget: some departments have thought through the statistics and some have not.
What you suggest may be worth considering, but it is important not to reinvent the wheel. Within the Parliament and the Executive, there is a lot of evidence of fairly radical forward thinking on equality of opportunity. We have to tap into that and develop it. This is about partnership working, using expertise that is already there, rather than setting up another body.
In the context of this debate, my response to Mr McMahon's suggestion would be: what problem would such a commission solve in the budget process? We need to understand the obstacles and barriers to achieving a budget process that factors in equality issues thoroughly and meaningfully. We need to ask whether that can be achieved through an equality commission, or whether the problem lies elsewhere and what is really needed are different ways of working in Government and the Executive.
We need to ask how the Government and the Executive engage with the Parliament and other agencies to ensure that there is a robust and healthy debate that leads to change. Would an equality commission, in this context, achieve that? I am not sure. Are the force, intelligence and diligence of the three statutory equality agencies in Scotland, together with the range of other equality groups, not enough to secure a quality debate on equality? Perhaps we should be looking for solutions other than that of a single equality commission.
Do you believe that the Scottish budget demonstrates a mainstreaming approach to equality?
No, not at all. The budget would have to have some explicit recognition of equality issues for it to be described as having a mainstreaming approach. At the moment, we are a long way from that.
Is that your basic worry? Here we are, a year on, and there is no evidence that equality has been anything other than an add-on, with people saying, "Well, while we're here, we'll mention equality."
Absolutely. Equality is not yet in the budget, despite the presentation of evidence a year ago, and that is a real problem. We hoped to see at least a beginning of an acknowledgement, in the overall objectives and in the departmental objectives, that equality needs to be considered, even though, in some areas, we are still working on the information base to allow objectives and targets to be set and measured. What has happened is disappointing.
Despite the fact that—if we go by the policy statements of the Scottish Executive and by the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament—it was intended to take a mainstreaming approach to equality, such an approach is not evident in the Executive document. In the equality strategy that the Scottish Executive has developed, one of the key mechanisms for change is the consideration by civil servants of the equality impact of their proposals. We have before us a document that has not benefited sufficiently from that approach.
We need to consider why that is the case and bat that backwards. Where people start and who will take the lead are important questions. Perhaps a starting point might be in a Scottish Parliament committee such as this, which could lead the way by factoring equality indicators into how it allocates its spending to particular groups to access its deliberations. I hope that that would have a knock-on effect on other committees and on the Scottish Executive's departments.
Do you prioritise any areas of inequality as crucial?
Social justice is key. If the Parliament is supposed to combat social injustice, a gender dimension to the analysis of that and the strategies to combat it is crucial. Education is also key to improving the situation.
Is there any advance on education and social justice?
No. We will not enter into dialogue about what we think is a priority, because that would presuppose or suggest that a hierarchy exists and that disability requires a different approach from race or gender, which it does not. The approach concerns ways of working, how the problem is addressed and how expenditure is allocated according to that. If the equality-proofing mechanisms are in place from the start, before people put pen to paper—if we change people's working mindset—we will achieve greater difference.
We must get that right and we must have evidence that we are getting poverty proofing of the equality agenda right.
Absolutely. That is why the process is important for what it will tell the Scottish Executive about rethinking the budget's building process.
Are you saying that there is no evidence in the budget that the Executive is getting it right?
That is correct. The budget contains no objectives or targets relating to equality.
The Executive may well be getting it right, but no evidence shows that.
I do not think that the Executive is getting it right. Unless explicit objectives are set, we do not know.
How do we measure progress?
That is the issue.
If we return to being pragmatic and considering development incrementally, we see that changes are happening. We are dealing with a relatively new body in a devolved setting. We must recognise that it will take time for equality issues to settle in. However, the budget has broad themes. Money is being spent in thematic bands. If the budget process is to be interactive, we must break it down much more to understand that if mainstreaming is a key Executive commitment, the document must make sense of it. At present, mainstreaming is not in the document.
Thank you. I must go to another meeting shortly. By leaving, I will not be walking out on you or staging a protest.
I am new to equal opportunities and I am trying to get my head round the approach to getting the budget right, so if I ask daft questions, please excuse me. Some positive developments on equality and social justice are taking place, yet the Executive has failed to include them in the budget. Dharmendra Kanani said that we needed to get the mindset right. The education department is not especially good at equality indicators or quality indicators. How do you measure whether a person is more confident or not discriminated against? It is easier to measure the number of highers that have been attained or the number of people who have come through the door.
A climate change is needed. How do we make progress towards that? People are willing to make progress and accept that change is needed in some of the documents and some of the work that is under way, but we do not see that change. How do we make the budget more interactive, as you said? Civil servants are not particularly good at interactivity—perhaps I should not say that. They will say, "This is the budget. This is what we do."
You are doomed, Cathy.
I was doomed a while ago. Do not worry about that.
If we are to deliver, we must be clear about how we do that. Sue Robertson said that we need to know what we are doing and how we measure that. The objective and targets need to be known. How do we achieve that?
In some areas it is relatively straightforward. In education, for example—
People in education departments do not think that it is straightforward.
It is straightforward to collect information about the gender of students; to look at subject choices and what career opportunities boys and girls or men and women are pursuing; to consider ways of influencing people to achieve a more equal gender balance between different professions.
That is evident in relation to modern apprenticeships, where the programme is 80 per cent male and 20 per cent female. The females go on to take up very traditional opportunities. A programme of awareness raising needs to be undertaken among young people to let them know of the different opportunities that exist. Boys could get involved in the caring professions and girls could get involved in things that are traditionally seen as male. If that kind of programme is to be developed, it needs to have a budget.
The same situation exists in schools where, if equal opportunities among pupils are to be studied, resources need to be devoted to introduce awareness raising and programmes to encourage young people to consider different options. Statistics are then needed to judge what happens to the school leavers; the gender breakdown of the labour force needs to be monitored.
An example of where that needs to happen is in child care, which is a rapidly developing profession. The Executive produced a statistical bulletin on child care that included only statistics on the pre-school sector. The bulletin made no mention of the after-school sector, which is the biggest growing sector in child care. The Executive needs to ensure that the statistics are produced so that they can be analysed.
There is a similar lack of statistics on pay levels in schools and in further and higher education. There is a big gender gap in pay levels in higher education. Women are paid typically much less than men. That kind of thing needs to be monitored. Resources need to be devoted to correcting those gender gaps.
We are talking about the relationship between spending plans and policy and legislative intentions. An attempt is being made to close the gap, but it needs to be closed much further. That will happen by the drip effect of looking backwards, as happens in this kind of process, and starting the scrutiny process much earlier on in the civil service.
I hope that the equality strategy can start in the Executive, so that we do not have to go through this process again. It is not tiresome, but we are having to make commonsense recommendations that should have been taken on board right from the start. It is not rocket science to say that if parity in economic outcomes, housing access and educational outcomes is to be achieved, a budget needs to be built in for that.
One of the key issues for the CRE is language provision or the question of how sufficient resources are provided for supported learning in schools. How do you ensure that local government and other public authorities are going to be geared up for their responsibilities, not simply for the provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, but in the emerging human rights framework? As human rights become much more evidenced and tested in various frameworks, we know what the implications are in Scotland now and in the future. The public sector across Scotland needs to be geared up for that and the budgetary implications need to be thought through much more effectively.
We are not starting with a blank sheet of paper—we can look at examples from elsewhere. In the 1980s, the Australian Government developed gender-proofing budgets for the federal Government and for every state and territory. That was a 10-to-12-year process, which required departments and outside agencies to be specific about targets that related to gender. They had to ask questions such as "What impact will this policy have?" and "How will it impact on women?" That was introduced at a time when Australia had a radical Labour Government. In the early 1990s, when the Australian Government changed to one that was slightly less radical, things dropped off the shelf. That is not a reason for not looking at the issue. We need to look at examples of good practice from elsewhere and pick out the pitfalls. Rather than reinventing the wheel, let us see where gender-proofing budgets have worked before.
There is a fundamental assumption that civil servants in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive are writing policy papers on their own, and that they are being required to include equality issues in those papers. We must give them support and ensure that, when ministers and MSPs make statements about equality of opportunity, their message is transmitted to officers within the Executive and the Parliament who are writing papers. The support structures must be in place for equality of opportunity training, so that we are not throwing people in at the deep end and expecting them to think about a policy and write it.
If our commitment is to bridge the gap between intention and spend, and to ensure that we have a more evidence-led formula in Scotland, we must establish how the Scottish Executive can be supported in implementing a programme of equalities data. We must get that right from the beginning. Some might argue that that would be too resource-intensive and difficult, but it would not. Rather than having to consider gender, disability, race and other matters individually, there must be a programme whereby public sector organisations across the board can learn from the Executive how to monitor take-up and geographical issues in a way that makes spending more accurate and focused.
As members have no further questions, I thank you for giving evidence to the committee today. I hope that you have sent your questionnaires back, as the closing date for them was yesterday. The committee will consider an analysis of them at its next meeting, next week.
Thanks for your time.
Meeting continued in private until 12:26.