Official Report 267KB pdf
The next item concerns the budget process. I welcome Stewart Maxwell and Yvonne Strachan again and invite the minister to make a brief introductory statement before questions.
Yes, unfortunately. I am speaking at an LGBT conference in another part of the country this afternoon.
Right. We will try to cover all the questions that are in our briefing. The time is short for us to prepare our draft budget report and members have a lot of questions that they want to get answers to on the record.
I understand. I will make my opening remarks as quickly as possible.
Thank you for that statement. Can you reassure the committee that the annual budget and the multiyear spending review form a key focus of the Government's equality mainstreaming strategy? How is the budget process informed by an overall commitment to mainstreaming equality?
We have made clear our support for mainstreaming equality. It is certainly one of the drivers for putting much of the principle and the policy into practice. Hopefully, you would accept that—that is our clear view. The issue with mainstreaming is not so much to do with numbers as to do with policies in practice. We want to ensure that the view of each directorate is influenced and developed on the basis of mainstreaming equalities. It is not my individual responsibility, although I do have responsibility as a minister: it is for each individual minister and cabinet secretary to take forward mainstreaming in their portfolios and areas of responsibility.
The link is the allocation of resource to ensure service delivery. That was the specific point that we wanted to home in on.
Of course. As I said, there is a real-terms increase in the equalities budget year on year. The numbers show a clear commitment from the Administration on equalities. However, we must take cognisance of the fact that there has been a tight settlement across the budget and the whole budget process has been concertinaed down because of the information being provided late by Westminster. It is clear that that has provided difficulties and many challenges in ensuring that all the different areas of Government take into account all the elements before the budget is set. I think that we have done a good job and that we have done the best that we can with the available resources in the available time.
Will you give us some specifics? It would be good to get on the record the figures that show your commitment. Funding will be increased, if I understood what you said.
I gave the figures in my opening remarks, but I will repeat them if you want me to.
That is helpful.
I am interested in the different context that has meant that the equalities element in the budget has been downgraded. I heard what you said about the timescale but, in terms of the process, I do not understand why the equalities element should be jettisoned and why you have been unable to do things properly. That is a concern, given that work on equalities in the first two budgets in the Parliament was regarded as pioneering.
Your first point was about jettisoning equalities.
I did not say that. I was talking about the process and the transparency of the budget.
I wrote down the word "jettisoned". If you check the Official Report, you will find that you used that word. What you said is untrue. I do not accept your interpretation. Equalities have not been "downgraded", to use another word that you used. I utterly reject that allegation.
In the interests of brevity, I wanted to ask two questions. First, why are there no longer targets in the budget for improving equal opportunities within the Executive? Secondly, would it be possible to have a separate report that explains how each portfolio supports equal opportunities in the budget? That might help us.
On your first question, I hope that you accept that we have moved to a new way of doing things that focuses on outcomes. We are focusing on delivery and results. We will measure outcomes and what we achieve rather than inputs. That approach has generally been welcomed throughout Scotland. The clear indication that we are taking such an approach is that the policy must deliver the equalities outcomes that we laid out in the negotiations with COSLA, which has signed up to the same direction of travel as the Government. Whether we are achieving the outcomes that we want to achieve will have to be measured.
I asked specifically about the Executive as an employer and targets or outcomes within the Executive. What about the Executive taking a leading role on the matter?
I am sorry, but I am not quite sure what you are asking. It is clear that we as an employer have rules in place. We meet the requirements of the legislation and ensure that we do not discriminate against employees. Is that what you are asking about?
Rather than prolonging the time that I have for questioning, perhaps I can correspond with you on the matter. Put simply, in the budget previously, targets were set that related to the Executive's equal opportunities responsibilities, but there are now no such targets. What else is in place to ensure that there is a sense that the Executive is driving equal opportunities in its work?
Perhaps it would be best if I gave a detailed reply in writing to that question.
That would be helpful. I think that there is a general concern that whereas equalities targets were set in specific portfolios so that they could be clearly tracked, such an approach appears to be absent in the budget that we are discussing.
The question seemed to be specifically about what is happening in the Executive as opposed to the general point on mainstreaming equality. If you want me to answer the general question about mainstreaming equality, I am happy to do so.
We are happy to move on. You have covered that.
I have a long list of things that are happening to mainstream equality. I am happy to put them on the record now or to write to the committee about them.
It would be useful to hear about one or two activities.
We have, for example, developed the 10-step online equality impact assessment tool. We have delivered briefing sessions on the public sector equality duties and the equality impact assessment tool to more than 1,000 Scottish Government staff. We have provided equality statistical information, such as the gender audit and the high-level summary of equality statistics. We have improved the monitoring of EQIA through a new business planning tool. A new cross-Government analysts equality group has been established. We are working with external partners, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and COSLA, and through our equality proofing budget and policy advisory group. That is less than half of what is on my list.
That will do for starters. If we need further information, we will write to you.
My question follows on well from your mention of the equality proofing budget and policy advisory group. The committee has received a briefing on that group's role. How are the advice and support that the group provides valued and how effective can the group be without including ministers or senior officials from the finance and sustainable growth portfolio?
The group's role is valued—that is why the group was established and why we maintain it. If we did not value it, we would not do that. It is clear that the group plays an important role.
I think that a problem exists. If you valued what the group does, ministers or senior officials would be members of it and would be involved in its discussions, rather than leaving the group aside to do something and saying, "Well done—we value you."
I accept that fair point. We are considering the group's membership and we will reach a view on that in the near future. We are reviewing whether the membership is appropriate. Can Yvonne Strachan add anything?
The point is well made. We are considering whether involving in the group officials who can feed in on strategy and finance aspects is necessary but, in the light of the new framework, it will be important to involve the relevant people. That will require us to reflect on the membership.
Membership is important, but so is the timing of the group's input. We want evidence that the budget has been equality proofed. The group would guide that process.
The group does that and assists with that process.
Has the budget been equality proofed? We can find no evidence that it has been.
The group has been extremely helpful through its pilot and through the information that it has provided to the Government, which we have reflected in the equality impact assessment tools that we have constructed and the approaches that we have taken. That has enabled us to take a view on how best we can ensure—particularly in policy development—that we mainstream and impact assess effectively. As we have said, because we are in the new context and because we have a different framework, we are considering our future approach. The group will have a role in helping us to determine whether we have the appropriate tools and mechanisms for the future.
Let me continue on the issue for a little bit. I am relieved that the Government is looking at the group's role in future, but I am disappointed that the group does not play a part at present. That is the problem. It is difficult for any committee to scrutinise what a department is doing without evidence of what has been done. We are trying to scrutinise the budget, but there seems to be no evidence that it has been equality proofed.
As I made clear earlier, we are in a new scenario and a new relationship. Our focus is very much on ensuring that the policies and outcomes that are delivered through the budget effectively achieve our ambitions and aims, which are laid out in the five strategic objectives and underlying supporting material. The proof of the budget will be in the outcomes and in whether we deliver fairness and equality through those outcomes. Fundamentally, our priorities lie in those ambitions, but that in no way undermines or takes away from our commitment to equality. We just have a different approach. Perhaps some of the difficulty that some people have is that we have shifted to a new way of working.
We obviously want outcomes, but if we are disappointed with those outcomes, we will regret that the budget was not equality proofed in the first place. We would like to see the budget equality proofed now to ensure that the tools have been used. I am not saying that the previous Scottish Executive was wonderful at that, but it was making progress.
We may be talking at cross-purposes. Clearly, the policies are what drive this forward. The money in the budget provides the ability to achieve those policies, but the policies—which are very much in line with equality proofing—will deliver the outcomes. The money is the oil that greases the machine, but the policies are very much underlined with equality proofing. Therefore, we may just be talking at cross-purposes. The budget numbers themselves do not tell you the level of commitment and desire in the policy; they just tell you about the money. Putting more money in but ending up with a poorer outcome is not, in my view, a particularly successful way of working, irrespective of whether more money has gone into an area that was thought to be of value. However, if the policy is correct—our policy is aimed at ensuring that we deliver on equalities issues across the Government—the outcomes will be delivered. The amounts of money involved might vary from budget line to budget line.
I have a small question—I know that we have many more to get through—about what Yvonne Strachan said in response to Marlyn Glen. She mentioned a pilot scheme that could provide an evidence base. Did she mean the health and sport pilot scheme? Will that be used for equality proofing? On the linked issue of ministerial representation on the group, if the group was considering a specific health or education pilot, would that mean that the relevant minister might participate in the group at that time?
On the smoking and sports pilots, I think that the gender analysis work of the budget helped the Scottish Government to finalise the development of its equality impact assessment tool for policy and practice. Therefore, I suppose that the answer is yes. Those pilots helped us to develop those tools, which will now be rolled out.
That is fine. I just wanted to clarify Yvonne Strachan's point about the pilots.
I welcome the minister's commitment to look at the membership of the equality proofing budget and policy advisory group. As he will have gathered, we very much value the work that it has done and we hope that its work will be given due cognisance and proper recognition. We look forward to the outcome of those deliberations.
I will ask you more about reporting on equality. My questions follow on from your responses to Johann Lamont's questions. When the previous Scottish Executive prepared the budget, each portfolio explained what it was doing to promote equality. At last week's evidence session, Angela O'Hagan, from the Scottish women's budget group, said:
I will make several points. First, as I have said, we are in a different place from where we were in SR 2004 in respect of the budget and the way in which we are operating. The presentation is different because we have approached the budget in a different way.
That is causing difficulty, because, as has been said, we cannot see the workings.
I expect equalities to be taken into account by each of the individual ministers in each of the individual portfolios. You will have to ask individual ministers about the detail of the process that they went through and how they took equalities into account. It is for individual cabinet secretaries and ministers to answer that question.
We do not have time to go through that process in respect of equalities, equal opportunities and equality proofing in this budget round.
As I have said, the clear expectation on my part and across the Government is that equalities are taken into account in the budget. I understand the difficulties caused by the fact that the budgetary process is different on this occasion because of the way that we have brought matters forward. We laid out before the election how we would approach the budget, and we have followed through on that. We gave a commitment and there was a clear expectation as to how we would approach the budget. I cannot speak for individual ministers in relation to their portfolio responsibility. If you have a concern about a particular area of work, you must take the detail up with the minister concerned.
Page 107 of the spending review document sets out the "Promoting Equality" budget and states that it
It is a given that we are in a different place. We laid out on page 107 our commitment to equalities issues in the budget. That is made clear in the sentence on page 107 about well-being. I do not see the difficulty, unless you are trying to say that the statement is inaccurate in some way.
The real point that we are trying to emphasise is that although there is a commitment and an expectation on equality, we are a little bit at sea as to exactly how far it will be fulfilled because of the lack of a clear equality statement for every portfolio.
As I mentioned when a similar point was raised in last week's debate, the commitment sits right at the top. It is an overarching commitment. At the beginning of the spending review document, this point is made:
I am sorry to cut in, minister, but none of us doubts that you have that overarching commitment. We respect what you say and we believe you, but we are concerned about how it can be judged and measured. How can we see the workings of how that commitment is fulfilled and how can the outcomes be judged in future? I do not think that I can go much further with that question at the moment.
It can be measured because we will be able to see the outcomes. We will be able to see whether things are getting better or worse. That will be clear from the outcomes. You will be able to see not only the five strategic objectives but the outcomes, national indicators and single outcome agreements that we reach with local government. They will provide clear indicators of the direction of travel and the principles that underpin all our work. The outcomes will provide us with clear measurements.
If you are to determine whether something is better or worse, you need to know what you are comparing it with. Outcomes do not preclude an understanding of what the budget moneys have the potential to deliver.
I and my fellow ministers are clear about my expectations of them. However, it is up to individual ministers to decide what to do. I cannot speak for individual ministers.
The equalities minister is responsible for cross-cutting and driving equalities, which I accept can be difficult. It should be possible for you to say that it would be helpful to have a statement from each portfolio to confirm the expectation. Then we will be able to measure your level of disappointment with whether it is fulfilled.
That is a key point, minister.
I accept that, but I do not think that I will be measuring my level of disappointment over the next few years. I will consider the issue and speak with my colleagues. Perhaps I should respond to the point.
I whole-heartedly support the concept of measuring outcomes. If we want to build evidence-based policy, outcomes must be measured. Might it be useful to produce a summary of the outcomes that relate to the paragraph on equality on page 107 of the spending review document? All the outcomes are there for us to find, but giving a summary would make your objectives clearer to some extent.
Are you talking about page 107?
Yes. We have had a long discussion about how you should measure the statement on page 107. It occurs to me that it might be helpful for you to relate that to the outcomes that you propose. It would be a summary of what exists, but it would make the situation clearer.
In one sense it would be a summary, but in another it would be everything because, as other members have said, the issues apply right across the Government and the summary would contain every part of the single outcome agreements that we are reaching with local government. We have established those agreements with local government, and all the outcomes and indicators must match up to that commitment. I am not sure that a summary would be particularly helpful.
I will cut that discussion short because you have indicated that you will write to us on those specific points. We appreciate that you are liaising with your colleagues on the points that we have raised during the discussion.
The minister has mentioned EIAs frequently. Have any of the Scottish Government's key policies—for example on class sizes, public transport and council tax—been subjected to equality impact assessments? Do you have any evidence of current practice on that?
There was no equality impact assessment of the budget as a whole, or of individual portfolio spends. It is expected that the policies—and the related spending—that are undertaken to deliver on the outcomes and the strategic objectives will be subject to equality impact assessment. That is the crucial point. Assessing the impact of our individual policies on equality groups will enable us to develop policy that is responsive to people's different needs. It will also enable us to distribute appropriately the resources that are allocated in the budget. The basic point is that equality impact assessment should be about how policies are being delivered, not about the budget as a whole, because—as I said earlier—the numbers can go up and down. What is important is the impact of those policies on the ground. They will be subject to equality impact assessment.
You mentioned future practice, but I asked whether you have any evidence relating to current practice. Is there any particular timescale in relation to council tax or class size reductions, for instance? When will it start? You keep talking about the future—is anything going on now?
There is, but I cannot give you a figure at the moment. It is difficult to monitor fully the number of equality impact assessments that are currently in progress. We are looking at that—it has to be improved upon. We will use the business planning tool to enable us to improve the monitoring of that particular area. From March 2008, we will introduce assurance measures on equality impact assessment through the internal audit process, which will also be of assistance.
You mentioned that it is difficult to give the numbers for current practice regarding impact assessments. Would that be with ministerial committees, or would it be within voluntary groups? Would this committee be able to get a list of those areas in which impact assessment is currently being practised?
That is the problem—there is a problem at the moment, and that is why we want to improve the process. We do not have a full picture, and that is why we want to ensure that we use the business planning tool to enable us to closely monitor that to ensure that we have got the information. I cannot give you a specific answer on all the different areas, because we do not have it. It is very difficult to monitor, and that is the very reason we want to improve the process.
Thank you for being honest with us on that particular point.
You must direct your specific questions about internal spend in the education budget to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning.
The minister has answered my question about the concordat between the Government and COSLA. The concordat is still fairly open. Will you have discussions with COSLA on issues such as class sizes, given that local government has responsibilities for education and equal pay, which affects many public authority employees? Will those specific issues be raised with COSLA when you talk about the concordat? I am thinking of issues such as classroom assistants, equal pay and care workers.
As I said, we had no involvement, and nor did the previous Executive, in the negotiations that led to the single status pay agreement that was negotiated by COSLA and the trade unions eight or nine years ago. Local authorities have a duty to implement a nationally agreed job evaluation scheme and to design pay and grading structures locally to ensure equal pay throughout the workforce. That process is on-going. It is the employers' responsibility to ensure that pay and conditions are fair and equitable and comply with equalities legislation. The responsibility clearly lies with local government.
Can you reassure the committee that the transfer of resources from the public sector to the third sector as part of the efficient government programme will be carried out with specific reference to equality impact? Public bodies have specific duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Will voluntary bodies be under the same obligations if they take over local government activities?
Yes.
The current public duties make it clear that if a body—private or voluntary sector—is contracted to supply a service to a local authority or public body, for the purposes of that contract they are subject to the same conditions as the authority. That does not mean that the whole organisation and everything it does is subject to those conditions—it is for the boundaries of that contract.
So anyone who is employed on that specific issue is fully covered by the act?
If their work falls within that contract.
That is helpful clarification.
How will the procurement process ensure that there will not be a levelling down of the quality of service as a result of limiting the resources available to the third sector to maintain the quality of those services? There is a tendency to bid down—to put a top bid in and force voluntary bodies to bid lower. Are there risks such as that in reducing the resource?
I certainly hope not. The intention is to maximise efficiencies and to ensure we get as much value as we can for the public purse. We have to strike a balance between using taxpayers' resources efficiently and getting the maximum from them, and ensuring that that is not done by discriminating against individual workers—or workers generally—by driving down conditions or pay settlements. That is not our intention. No matter who delivers the service, that would be neither a necessary nor a desirable outcome of any attempt by Government to ensure we get value for money for Government spend. We have made statements on ensuring that organisations get full cost recovery. We are working on that area, which is particularly relevant to the voluntary sector.
Will there be any attempt at monitoring that, just as a precaution, to ensure that there is no drop in conditions?
We keep an eye on that—not only through our own organisation but particularly through local authorities—to ensure that it does not happen. Organisations, particularly local authorities, which would progress the issue, are signed up to the concordat, and to the objectives, outcomes and indicators. We will be signing outcome agreements with individual authorities. When those are completed, it will be clear from them that it will be unacceptable for the outcome that your question was predicated on to occur. Any such outcome would be outwith the direction of travel that we and local government are signed up to. I do not believe that that will be the outcome; if it is, it would be outwith the scope of what we are trying to do, and would be unacceptable to me and to the Government.
How will you ensure that the Government identifies and acts on any unintended negative effects in relation to the equality goals of the new approach to delivering services across the range of local government activity? For instance, does the concordat cover any potential failings?
The concordat is a fairly high-level agreement, so it does not go into that level of detail. Below it are a number of indicators and the single outcome agreements that we will negotiate with local authorities. That process is on-going and I cannot give you an answer at the moment—you will have to wait until those agreements are signed.
If a specific problem arose, would it be possible for you to write to us to explain how you were handling the situation?
Yes—I do not think that there is any objection to that suggestion. If an issue was drawn to our attention in the scenario that you have painted, I would be more than happy to ensure that the committee was made aware of how we were dealing with it.
In session 2, the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Finance Committee recommended that each department should choose one quantitative target, conduct a gender-disaggregated analysis of it—I always get the difficult questions—and then, on the basis of that analysis, make recommendations for the next spending review. Has that been done? The previous Executive said that a workshop on that subject was held in October of last year. Do you have any plans to follow through on that?
The question is predicated on our being in a different place. The recommendation related to the previous Administration and was predicated on the budgetary process carrying on along roughly the same lines as before. We have moved the agenda on and we are now in a different place. We have not followed the approach that you outlined because I do not believe that it is applicable.
Would you see EPBPAG being a vehicle for resolution of any such situations?
I would have to consider that. We would have to look at how to address the issue in the set of circumstances in which we now find ourselves. The issue is not whether we follow the approach that you outlined; it is about having a way of dealing with matters that is appropriate to the current circumstances rather than a procedure that was written when the circumstances were quite different.
The major feature of the recommendation in question was that it pinned down each department to looking at a target, to analysing it and to reporting back on how it followed through on the analysis. I suppose that we seek reassurance that if such a process is not in place, each department still has a focus on delivering the desired goal.
It is a small point, but we no longer have departments—we have directorates.
They are the equivalent of departments.
They are slightly different—I put that on the record for a reason.
Is the fact that we do not have departments a problem?
I do not think that it is a problem. I have repeatedly made the point that, as regards the structure of the Government, we are in a very different place from where we were at SR 2004. We must develop mechanisms and tools that allow us to carry out the analysis that we are discussing. Some of the mechanisms that were devised some years ago might not be appropriate for where we are today. Officials are working to ensure that the rest of the Government is dealing with equalities issues. We have moved on considerably from when the previous mechanisms were devised.
Would it be fair to sum up the situation by saying that there has been a shift towards greater emphasis on outcomes and the use of equality impact assessments? That approach could almost be summed up as, "Trust me, I'm the equalities minister."
I do not think that it can be summed up in that way. I think that it is a focused way of doing it. I genuinely believe that we all want improvements across all the areas the Government is involved in. There has to be a determined focus on those outcomes. Equality impact assessments have to be used to determine whether the policies we are implementing are delivering the outcomes we expect. The issue is about service delivery, not whether there is £10 million this year and £11 million next year. What is important is the impact of that money on the ground. That is where the impact assessment has to come into play.
I suppose that the committee's concern is that we will get to the outcomes and say, "Oops! Not enough resources were allocated." We need to find a balance in relation to the point at which we realise the allocation of resources should be targeted at a specific area.
Yes, but that could happen irrespective of anything. All Governments have to make a judgment about how much money they allocate to each area. Focusing much more on the outcomes rather than the inputs is a valuable shift that will shed much more light on all of the Government's activities across all of the portfolios than the previous way of doing things did.
Did the Scottish Government take account of the disability recommendations when it constructed the draft budget? I am referring to the 156 recommendations in our predecessor committee's disability inquiry report, "Removing Barriers and Creating Opportunities".
The answer to that question is, I suppose, yes. That information was available during the process by which the budget for each individual portfolio was drawn up and the priorities were determined. I cannot give you the specific detail of what each minister did, but I can assure you that those recommendations formed part of the evidence base that they had before them and I am sure that they would have used them as part of the process.
That is a welcome overview. We will press each minister in turn to find out the extent to which the resourcing has followed the recommendations.
I want to ask about the race equality statement and the action plan consultation. Will the document include details of the budget resources that will be allocated for each of the four areas that are covered: Gypsy Travellers, employment, rural racism, and asylum seekers and refugees?
I will try to answer as fully as I can, but we have not reached the end point of the discussions on that document and I cannot yet give you the detail of what it will look like.
Thank you for coming to the committee, minister. We look forward to seeing you on 18 December.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—