Finance Committee, 04 Apr 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 4, 2000

Official Report 117KB pdf

---

Scottish Budget 2001-02

The third item on this morning's agenda is the Scottish budget for 2001-02, specifically its implications for equality issues. We have a letter from Jack McConnell, a draft of the annual expenditure report from the Scottish Executive, "Investing in You", and a paper from Engender, an organisation that has comments to make on how budgets can be gendered.

Does item 3 relate specifically to equality issues?

Yes. The committee may comment on or make suggestions arising from the paper that we have received from Engender. Engender suggests that we may require a gender impact assessment. Perhaps we should have discussed that when we considered the guidance on commenting on budget proposals that we issued to subject committees. However, it is better late than never. Do members have any comments?

Can we change the information on scrutiny of budgets that we have issued to subject committees, or is it too late to do that?

No other committee has yet embarked on consideration of the budget proposals, so if this committee wanted to make any further recommendations it would be free to do so.

Do you wish to make a proposal, Rhoda?

I would like us to ask committees to consider the gender issue when scrutinising budgets.

I support that and suggest that the convener or deputy convener issue a press statement on the issue to make the wider community aware of what is being done. If it is done well, a gender impact assessment could be tremendously positive. It would be useful if the committee could be seen to be taking a lead on this.

That is a very good suggestion.

Some of Engender's comments are interesting, but I am a little concerned by, for example, the suggestion that

"women are more frequent users of public transport than men".

We must be very careful not to recommend a black-and-white approach to such issues.

In some areas with high unemployment, young people have no access to public transport. The same can be said of rural areas. Some pensioners are affected, too. We should temper our recommendation by suggesting that committees also remember the needs of those who do not as a matter of routine have access to normal services. If we make a black-and-white recommendation, we will tell committees such as the Transport and the Environment Committee that they should positively discriminate only in favour of women. What about other sectors of society?

I do not disagree with the paper, but I am concerned that there will be a spate of interest groups asking us to push particular issues. I would have thought that, because of the way in which they are composed and the way in which they conduct their business, committees will consider this kind of issue anyway.

There is legislation to protect the interests of people who are disabled, if those are the people to whom David Davidson is referring. It is up to each committee to consider the impact of spending on gender issues in its area. We would not give black-and-white guidance on how to do that; each committee will have a deeper knowledge of the budget in its area and the implications. There is no need to temper our recommendation: we will give committees a brief to take gender issues into account when they scrutinise budgets.

This is not about forcing changes to the budget, but about conducting an assessment of its impact on gender issues, which must be a good thing and is forward looking. I am alive to David Davidson's concerns, but I do not think that anything in this proposal would threaten the balance of the budget.

I take issue with the point made by David Davidson. I thought that we were all supposed to be signed up to holistic government. It makes a great deal of sense to consider issues such as gender equality. I also note the section in the paper headed "General Comments on ‘Spending Plans for Scotland'", in which Engender states:

"We are concerned to see social inclusion treated solely within the Community section when it should cut across all areas. Each spending area should be demonstrating how it contributes to social inclusion and equity".

That is precisely the kind of approach that we should be adopting and asking committees to take on board. I fully support the main thrust of this paper.

I would like to respond to Adam Ingram's comments. I believe in holistic government and have asked for it a number of times in debates. I am suggesting that we should be careful about how we word any advice we give. Every committee ought to be considering people's needs in the broadest possible way. There will be hard decisions to make on spending. I agree with Andrew Wilson's point about the need to consider gender issues as part of the audit process, but if committees know that the audit process will include a specific question on gender, they will build that into their budget programme. I am not bitterly opposed to what is suggested here, but I want us to be cautious about the advice that we give. This committee has considerable power to guide other committees on how they approach budget setting. We should allow them more discretion, as we will have to deal with the budget when it is referred back to us anyway. Perhaps this does not need to be a very rigorous exercise.

One of the ideas underpinning the Parliament, which was outlined in the consultative steering group's report and accepted by the Parliament, is that of mainstreaming equality and gender issues. A gender impact assessment would be one way of taking that forward. I take on board what David Davidson is saying, but there has often been a lack of information, particularly information disaggregated in a way that would allow us to know accurately what has happened. That is something that all committees need to bear in mind. A number of committees have indicated that we require more and better information, which would allow us to make better decisions.

Rhoda Grant has suggested that we write to the subject committees indicating that, in addition to the advice that we have already given on how they consider budgets, they should consider the impact of budgets on gender issues. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.