Budget Process 2010-11
On resuming—
Our second panel consists of representatives of the Government's equality and the budget advisory group, EBAG—it has been renamed. The committee is focusing its scrutiny on the Scottish Government's draft Scottish budget 2010-11, and on equal pay in the national health service. We will hold a round-table discussion on that issue at our next meeting on 22 September. In advance of that, today's session provides us with the opportunity for a more general overview of the Scottish Government's work on equality proofing its draft budget.
It is my pleasure to welcome our panel of witnesses, who are all members of the equality and the budget advisory group: Alistair Brown is deputy director of finance at the Scottish Government; Yvonne Strachan is head of the equality unit at the Scottish Government; and Angela O'Hagan is the convener of the Scottish women's budget group. I welcome, too, our new budget advisor, Rona Fitzgerald.
The committee notes that the group has a new name—I am not sure whether it is more straightforward than the old one, although it is intended to be—and remit. Has there been an evaluation of the previous work? If so, what has been learned from that evaluation?
Yvonne Strachan (Scottish Government Equalities, Social Inclusion and Sport Directorate):
We have not carried out a formal evaluation, but the purpose of our group is to consider where we have been and where we need to be. The fact that we even considered changing the name and the remit is evidence of that, not only because the name was a bit unwieldy but because what it described probably did not capture the focus of the group.
In particular, with regard to equality proofing, there has been concern in this committee and abroad that the notion is that we consider something after the fact; proofing implies that you examine something that has been done and consider its impact. The intention behind the group has been to do something different, which is to influence spend and ensure that equality is part of that process. That is certainly more in line with how it is intended policy will be developed. In other words, it should be part of the process and not something that is done at the end of the process.
In view of that, the group has decided to change its name to the equality and the budget advisory group to better reflect the fact that policy is important and sits underneath everything. I hope that the name change and our expanded remit demonstrate that we have been reflecting on what we do and where we need to go.
I am sure that we will explore this in questioning, but an issue that emerged strongly in last year's discussions was the extent to which the advisory group was engaged in thinking about where it needed to go with the budget and in finding an appropriate mechanism to carry out greater scrutiny. We had a good year this year, in which we held a very useful workshop with EBAG's members on what we should be doing and how we might approach matters in the future. When we met last week, we agreed a tight and challenging programme of work that will, I hope, not only leave us better equipped for dealing with the post-2011 budget process and better informed about its context, but give us a mechanism for engaging with stakeholders and reporting to ministers. It should also ensure that we engage with ministers early in the process, which I believe was another concern that the committee flagged up.
I realise that that was rather a long-winded answer on how we evaluated where we have been. We are certainly looking at where we have been and where we need to be and, as a result, have adjusted our name, remit and programme of work for the next 12 months.
When was the workshop held?
The workshop was held in May.
You said that you also met last week. Is that not quite tight, given that the draft budget will be published soon? How do you reconcile that with the suggestion in the new remit that, with regard to policy, you are going to be more hands-on, try to influence matters and be in the driving seat rather than in the back seat?
We met in April, and in May we held the workshop, part of the thinking behind which was to examine how the group might advise Government in its consideration of equality. A result of those discussions is that we have ensured that any budget material that is commissioned will contain information and advice on equality, and that there will be equality input at budget seminars and internal briefings to finance and business managers.
Angela—the intention sounds good, but did it all work out that way? Are there still any gaps or reservations?
Angela O'Hagan (Scottish Women's Budget Group):
First, let me say that I am pleased to be here not only with my Scottish women's budget group hat on but as part of EBAG. One reason for our good year, as Yvonne Strachan called it, has been the committee's tenacious interest in equality in the budget; indeed, it was the committee flagging up its interest in progress on this issue and in the group's outcomes this time last year that kick-started and re-energised the whole process. The Scottish women's budget group has been very pleased to see the renewed energy and focus this year but, as I say, it is important to acknowledge the committee's focus on equality in the budget, which, as recommendations from the Finance Committee and the Local Government and Communities Committee's report on equal pay in local government have shown, has ensured further parliamentary scrutiny of the issue.
As for EBAG, it is still very early days. We met last October and in April and made many decisions about the processes on which we might wish to embark. As we are only now beginning to flesh out those processes, it is still too early to say what will happen. Nevertheless, the Scottish women's budget group lives in hope; indeed, if we did not, we would not still be here after 10 years. The new name, the new remit and the new people and new organisations that we hope will come on board give a new sense of energy and purpose.
As the comments of the EHRC suggested, we have managed to re-activate realisation that the budget process is imperative in making progress on equality issues. Examination of the budget—which is a key expression of Government policy and resource allocation—is not an isolated exercise. That is the methodology that the women's budget group has always wanted to see being adopted. As Yvonne Strachan said, a post hoc proofing exercise was never going to deliver that, so we have lost a lot of time and ground in going round that particular loop, but we have a commitment from the Government members of EBAG to produce a new methodology and to work across Government directorates and with external agencies, as well as with the women's budget group, to do that. That commitment was discussed only last Friday, so it is very fresh, but it gives the committee an indication of a renewed commitment and a new strand of work that I hope you will be involved in and will want to monitor over the coming months.
How will the revised remit of and the commitment to EBAG be resourced?
Do you mean in terms of staffing?
Yes.
The staffing will remain the same. The secretariat is supported by the equality unit, and that will continue to be the case. The group is assisted with its delivery because, as Angela O'Hagan indicated and as the committee was keen to ensure, the group's membership has been strengthened and participation in its discussions by particular parts of the Government is stronger. We receive both analytical and financial support that will help us in providing the information and the context that are necessary to deliver our extremely tight and challenging work programme.
Whether we need additional financial resources will depend on the precise mechanism that we want to adopt between now and the spring of next year in preparation for the next budget round. We have a meeting scheduled in October to consider that in more detail. Depending on what that mechanism looks like, we might need to seek additional resource, but at the moment it is not anticipated that that aspect of delivery of the programme will be resource intensive. We believe that we can resource planned activities, such as the stakeholder meetings or a conference on what have we learned 10 years on in Scotland and abroad, from within our existing budgets.
How will the work be monitored in the next phase?
We have not laid that down, but monitoring is an important matter to raise. A process for evaluating the effectiveness of whatever new mechanism or approach is adopted will need to be built into the system. If that subsequently requires resource, we will need to consider that, but at the moment we do not have an evaluation process because we have not determined precisely what the mechanism will be.
Thank you for that.
You will be aware that the committee has taken quite an interest in the continuing discussion about membership of the group. Has the group's membership changed since last year's budget scrutiny process?
Yes, it has. Among those who attend the group are public sector reform colleagues, colleagues from Scotland performs, our performance and strategy divisions, and colleagues from local government finance—they are internal colleagues. In addition, we requested the attendance of someone from our economy and economic performance division at the April meeting. They will not sit as a standing member—someone from that division will be invited to attend as and when the group chooses.
Another issue that the membership raised at our workshop was that it would be helpful, given the concordat and the relationship that exists between central Government and local government, for there to be local government engagement in the work of the group, and we have explored that with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. That was approved at our meeting last week, so we will take that forward.
We are also discussing with Audit Scotland what it might contribute to our work. It has a different function and independent status, so there would be issues in any work that we do, but we want to consider whether Audit Scotland can contribute.
For the avoidance of doubt, is there a senior representative on the group from the Scottish Government's finance and sustainable growth portfolio?
Alistair Brown (Scottish Government Finance Directorate):
That is me, convener.
I am sorry—I should have said that the finance directorate is represented. I beg your pardon, convener.
That is a welcome addition. The committee has asked for it for many years.
It is helpful to know the details of the group's work programme in advance. You said that a meeting is scheduled for October. The group's meetings have habitually been timed for the week before the committee has taken evidence on the matter, which means that we have no chance to read the minutes of the meeting. I presume that your resources are not up to producing minutes fast enough for that. Do you need more resources so that you can do that sort of thing and so that the process is a bit more open?
That is an important point. There is no intention not to be open about the process. As you know, we have unfortunately had staff turnover problems. I know that I said the same when I was at the committee last year, so I am happy to say now that the issues are being resolved, which should improve the process. That is particularly important because we have such a challenging year ahead. I am keen for us to do exactly what Marlyn Glen says, which is to make information available as quickly as possible, not only to the EBAG membership, but to the committee. We understand that the committee will have an interest in what we are doing in the coming period so, if it is helpful, we can make available to the committee our draft work programme and plans. If our minutes are not on the web in time, we can ensure that the committee has that information.
That is helpful.
I note Angela O'Hagan's kind remarks about the committee's influence on the good year that the group has had. I welcome the committee's new budget adviser, and I acknowledge the work and innovative approach of our previous adviser, Ailsa McKay.
Yvonne Strachan mentioned that the group has made progress on establishing more direct links with ministers. You said that you are considering facilities for reporting to ministers—will you give more detail on that? Will the process be more formal? What will the set-up be?
We discussed that issue on Friday and have yet to translate that discussion into a paper to ministers. The proposals that we discussed are about ensuring that ministers receive a report of the group's activity for the year, and that there is a mechanism for presenting the report formally to ministers, rather than on an ad hoc basis. We suggest that, when the report is given to ministers, a meeting should be held with them so that the information can be considered. The suggestion is that that should happen early enough in the process to allow the information to influence ministers or be taken on board in the context of their thinking during the summer what should happen in the budget. The report would be compiled and provided to ministers in the early part of the summer each year. That is a more formal process than one that relies on ad hoc information. It would allow the group to have dialogue with ministers ahead of their thinking on the budget. We hope that that would be important.
Another measure that we are taking and which we hope will be helpful is to ensure that the information in our analysis that provides a context—information on the pressing issues and the questions that need to be addressed—will be part of the information that goes to ministers. I hope that we will provide greater support to ministers in their decision making, as well as ensuring that the group's work and the concerns or issues that arise as a result are translated properly. Our intention is that that process should happen around June, although I do not want to set a specific date. That will depend on the process, although it would certainly be done for the summer.
The committee clearly thought that that was important. I think that I speak on behalf of everyone when I say that we are pleased to hear that you are now taking a more formal approach to the matter.
At approximately this time last year, we asked about information in the budget documents relating to progress on the equality agenda. I understand that the Government will publish a carbon account assessment. Can its officials confirm that there will be significant rather than—as happened last time—passing reference to equalities across the budget documents, in order to give us some indication of progress and the direction of travel?
We have considered what would be the best means of doing that. As members know, there have been discussions about the ability of the equalities information to be reflected properly in the budget, other than in headline points. I know that that has been a point of criticism by the committee. As a result, it is now the intention to publish an equality statement alongside the budget, which will allow more detail to be provided and will, we hope, enable this committee and others to see how equality is being considered as part of the process.
That is welcome.
Could you provide more detail on the equality statement that will appear alongside the budget? Will it be an analysis of the budget or simply a statement of spending to promote equality?
The statement is still in process, so I cannot describe in detail what it will look like at the end. Essentially, the intention is to highlight how the budget is contributing to the delivery of equality and what the money is driving—how the Scottish Government's spending will contribute to delivery of equality. The statement will also provide the committee with additional information on how equality is being addressed internally in the Government. It is not possible to provide such information in the headline budget document.
So, the statement will be an analysis.
As we said earlier, we heard about the statement only on Friday. In principle, it is good news. The Scottish women's budget group has been asking for such a statement for a long time; it is fairly common practice for Governments elsewhere to provide equality statements. We will wait to see what the statement looks like when it appears. The positive points to note are that there is a commitment to produce a statement alongside the budget and that, hopefully, the minister will speak to that.
The Scottish women's budget group is holding fire on whether, as Marlyn Glen suggested, there will be an analysis across Government portfolios. To my mind—and to hers—the whole purpose of the process in which we are engaged is analysis of Government spending to address discrimination and to promote equality across Government functions, not the straightforward promotion of equality as an objective or in a discrete sense. It is not about how much the Government is spending on promotion of equality per se but about the extent to which the equality implications of decisions about Government spending against policy priorities, as detailed in programmes or high-level spending objectives in the budget documentation, have been subject to robust analysis. We have long argued that we want an equality statement to detail that.
As I should have mentioned in my previous answer, EBAG has not yet had sight of the guidance that was issued to business and policy managers during the summer. It also had no input into the internal seminars that took place, which is fair enough. For that reason, I cannot comment on what direction was given to business and policy managers as they put together their budget submissions. It comes back to the comments that Yvonne Strachan made earlier. It is hoped that, as we move forward, the exercise will be one not of equality proofing, but of building in a robust analysis across Government functions of what the measures are.
Mr O'Donnell referred to the carbon budget. As you might imagine, that has fairly exercised the Scottish women's budget group and others, including the committee, who have a long-standing commitment to pursuing equality in the budget. We would be interested to know the resource allocation to the carbon budget exercise. Although we thoroughly support it, it is interesting to see the way in which resources have been made available for it. I cannot comment on the level of the resources that have been made available for it, as we do not know that, but the committee's interest or the interest of the wider public may be piqued to know what resources have been allocated. Equality is a long-standing commitment of successive Governments, but it has progressed at a considerably slower pace in budget terms. Although the methodology of the carbon budget process might not be directly transferable, we hope that the political commitment is.
This may be a good time to bring in Alistair Brown. I know that you cannot comment in detail but, from your financial perspective, is that a fair and reasonable indication of what the content of the statement should be and of how this impacts on the equalities agenda?
Convener, can I check that you are asking about the equality statement that Yvonne Strachan talked about?
I am.
As you acknowledge, it is difficult for us to say much about the content of the statement at this stage, but I expect it to cover the kind of ground that Angela O'Hagan described. In an attempt to manage the committee's expectations, I point out that this will be the first time that such a statement has been produced to accompany the Scottish budget and that we regard it as a learning process. I should check that Yvonne Strachan agrees with that.
I think that we produced a statement to the budget in 2004, for the previous Government.
So it is not the first time.
It is the first time for the present Government. From where we sit, it is a learning process. The group has discussed where we need to be over the next period and we are trying to position our approach in the context of a very different budget setting—one in which, we understand, there will be pressures on the spend that is available. How we manage the process effectively with regard to equality will be incredibly important. We are concerned to ensure that we have in place a mechanism to be effective and robust about that approach. That is why we have considered the kind of work programme that we have, and are determined to work collectively to find the appropriate way in which to deliver. We want to ensure that we have that mechanism or process as well developed as it can be.
I hope that, in the learning process on the statement, some cognisance will be taken of this discussion and what the committee feels will make a meaningful statement on equality.
Given the financial constraints that the Government will be under, it is critical that we espouse the case of equality. It would be hugely ironic and very negative if a lower expenditure level were used as an excuse to push the equalities agenda to one side. We need to ensure that that does not happen, please.
The minutes of the April 2009 equality proofing the budget and policy advisory group meeting mention the question of how the Scottish Government's national performance framework would link to the budget. What are your views on how the Scottish Government's national performance framework links to the budget?
The Government's stated intention is that its purpose should be served by its draft budget and by the budget bill. There has also been recognition that the Government has embarked on a journey—a direction of travel—in seeking to make more progress in linking its budget to the national performance framework, which includes the purpose, the objectives and the national outcomes. As one would expect, work is currently being done on that within the Scottish Government, particularly with a view to the next spending review, which provides the Government, as members will know, with an opportunity to look at its overall spending priorities for the next three years. The draft budget that is about to be published will cover 2010-11, which is the last year of spending review 2007. We expect the next spending review to take place next summer or autumn, although the timing is not yet precise. The work that is being done to link the budget to outcomes and to the national performance framework will be particularly useful as an input to that spending review.
I should perhaps add that the reason for bringing those two things together is that our driver—the charge that all of us throughout Government are given—in thinking about how we develop our policies and use our resources is the national performance framework and the outcomes that it identifies, as well as the delivery of the overall purpose. The view is largely that if something cannot be matched to that we should not be doing it. The national performance framework sits as a kind of guide for how we should drive policy direction and where spending should go. There is a link between the performance framework and how, and for what purpose, we spend and utilise our resources.
As Alistair Brown mentioned, the national performance framework is relatively new, so as a Government we are still working through how we make all those connections and appropriately articulate them, but the connections are there. For that reason, it was important to have a discussion with the group and with representatives from those who look at the national performance framework to explore the issue and to make those connections. That is why we are keen that liaison and relationship with that division is maintained by the group over the coming period. As Alistair Brown indicated, that will be particularly important as we move to the next phase in our planning around the budget for the next period.
One of the national outcomes is:
"We have tackled the significant inequalities in Scottish society."
That outcome has 15 related national indicators of progress, such as
"60% of school children in primary 1 will have no signs of dental disease by 2010".
Do the national indicators suggest that progress is being made on tackling the significant inequalities in Scottish society?
Generally, the view is that progress is being made but, to be fair to the committee, I cannot give the detail on that. It would not be appropriate for me to say what the direction of travel is on the different indicators. A report that is updated regularly is available on the Scotland performs website that provides an on-going indication of where and what progress is being made.
It might be helpful to indicate to the committee that we acknowledge that measuring the performance on equality is an area that needs further development. I do not know whether this came up in the discussion with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but the EHRC is undertaking work on an equality measurement framework. The Scottish Government has been involved in discussions about the framework with a view to welcoming its development and to ensuring that it will fit and map on to the national performance framework. If that can be done, we would like to use the framework as an additional element to ensure that we deliver on our national outcomes.
We also need a measurement framework that acts as a more effective mechanism to measure progress in the Scottish situation. Work on that is on-going, and we have been working collaboratively with the commission to that end. Our analysts are currently carrying out a mapping exercise with the national performance framework to consider how that can be achieved. I hope that it will add another element of strong connection between the national framework and our work around equality.
Mr Chisholm might not be surprised to know that the same question was asked by EBAG members a while back. There has been progressive discussion on how the measurement frameworks link up across the spectrum of the decision-making processes, the measurement processes and the equality analysis processes. We are examining whether there is a thread running through that would make such analysis visible. One of the touchstones to which we consistently return in conceptualising that process is the importance of equality impact assessment and robust equality analysis at all stages.
That links to Mr O'Donnell's point about the imperative of retaining an equality focus and perspective in budget setting, particularly in times of budget cuts. Equality is—or should be—integral to all policy and programme delivery, rather than involving spending activities on the margins, which is obviously a temptation when budget cuts are imminent.
This morning's discussion reinforces the link to the budget. Are the areas of policy priority, as set out in the 15 indicators, supporting the national outcome on tackling significant inequalities? Are they visible in the spending commitments and priorities in the budget? Those are consistent questions to which the committee and EBAG must return. The Government is saying that those are the priority areas for addressing significant inequalities, but is that political commitment matched by resource allocation in the budget? We have therefore come full circle.
That leads nicely on to Marlyn Glen's line of questioning.
Some of us are perhaps in danger of mixing up the EMF with EqIA, but I will concentrate on EqIA. I think that we all agree that the budget development process is a key stage in building equality into the departmental bids and ensuring compliance with equality legislation. I am interested in whether you can link EqIA with the EMF, if that is possible, but first I will ask a direct question on EqIA. What progress is being made on using and improving equality impact assessment through the current budget process, or has it been overtaken by something else? Are there plans to make the current tool more robust in relation to the budget development process?
Thank you for those questions, which we have been considering. I will deal with your last point first, which involves an issue that arose at the committee's previous meeting on the subject. We indicated then that we were examining the tools that are available for EqIA and seeking to improve them, particularly in relation to the issues around the budget. We have had some discussions about how we might do that and we are considering two issues. First, we need to improve the tool and the guidance that goes with it, and part of that will be informed by what we want people to do during the next period. Secondly, the tool will be influenced by what we decide to do with the specific duties and as a result of consultation, and impact assessment will be part of that process.
Although we have responsibilities to exercise now, it will be helpful, if we are making big changes to the tools and the guidance across Government, to ensure that we do so in the context of where we expect to be in relation to the public sector duty. We discussed that internally with EBAG. Obviously, we have to think about how we manage that, which is another consideration for us in developing appropriate changes to the tool.
Another issue that has arisen as a result of our consideration of how we might improve the tool is a recognition of the fact that the arrangement that we currently have is quite effective for examining individual policies, but becomes a little clunky and less helpful when you are examining more strategic questions or broader frameworks. We have been keen to determine whether we need a separate tool or mechanism for that second function that will assist policy makers more effectively to record and reflect what they have done as part of the impact assessment process. That will be helpful, as it will enable us to frame a description of what has gone on through the budget process or the development of more strategic policies or frameworks. With the concordat, we have moved to providing frameworks and more strategic approaches rather than deciding on individual policies, so having the appropriate tools to match that direction of travel has become quite important.
That is a long-winded answer to your question. We are considering the issue. We have agreed that we need to make changes. We want to do that in the context of the changes that we may wish to make more broadly with the specific duty, and we also want to look at what additional provision or tool we might provide for policy makers that will allow us to do the more strategic and framework-related analysis.
Can you give a few examples of how the EqIA process has influenced spending decisions?
That would have to involve individual areas of spend, but I can talk about the equality unit's provision.
Most of our spend was determined some time back—our allocations are largely made for a three-year period. As such, when we were considering what we should do on, for example, our national delivery plan on children and young people who are affected by domestic abuse, and how those resources should be allocated with regard to the equality analysis of the plan, it was important to think about certain issues. Our impact assessments helped us to ensure that the way in which we allocated our spend for the delivery of that plan would be effective and would deal with some of the areas in which we have to consider equality interests.
It is difficult for me to talk about how that approach is being delivered in other areas of policy. I hope that we will be able to reflect on that in a little more detail in the equality statement.
The budget provides funding for Scottish Government policies. Is it possible to state the proportion of Scottish Government policies that have been subject to the EqIA process?
I can give you a sense of the number of policies that have been published and those that have been subject to an equality impact assessment. The intention is that most of our policies should go through that process. Around 80 policies have been published—I think that that is the number, but I am happy to confirm it for you—and many others are in the process of being published. We would expect those policies in which there is considerable spend to be subject to the assessment, but I cannot give you an indication of all the policies that have been covered. Those that are published are on our website, and I can write to you about the ones that are in draft form, in order to give you an indication of the areas that are being considered. Is there something in particular that you want to explore?
No. I suppose that the answer that I wanted was that all Scottish Government policies are equality impact assessed. However, it seems that we are moving towards that.
Policy makers are expected to consider impact assessing their policies. They go through a process and, provided that there is an implication for people—which is the case for most policies—that process should be undertaken. What we have said before is that a number of the policies will be in process and that a number have been and will be published.
Could you elaborate on your thinking about the multiplicity of frameworks and assessment tools that seem to appear? I do not wish to burden you with more work, but you must throw your hands up in horror when another assessment framework appears out of the blue. For example, what will the equality measurement framework give you that you do not already have within the set of assessment tools and frameworks that you currently apply?
One thing that it will do is provide a framework for measuring the progress on equality—that does not exist at the moment. We are getting better at collecting data and information that will give us a view of whether progress has been made for particular groups. In Scotland, we have had considerable problems with data collection, not least because some of the surveys and tools cannot dig down deep enough to record information about areas with smaller numbers, such as minority ethnic communities.
Our analysts have been working hard for some time to try to get disaggregated data—in other words, to break down the information by age, gender, race, disability and so on. That process is improving. The framework will give us a mechanism that is shared and will allow us all to work together and see how a particular group is doing in relation to education, health or whatever the measurement might be. We will be able to pull together the information that we already have and perform the collection, dissemination and analysis that will enable us to see more readily what progress we are making.
We see the framework as a positive tool that will help us work with the data that we already collect and, perhaps, help us to see what other data it might be appropriate for us to collect. The other advantage is that, if the framework is shared, it will be used similarly in Wales and England. That will enable us, when appropriate, to make some comparisons that show us how Scotland is doing with regard to a number of the shared outcomes and indicators.
The work that we undertake will amount to a helpful tool for measuring progress. As I said to Mr Chisholm, the work that we are doing at the moment will be complementary to the national performance framework and there will be synergies that ensure that we are not creating a separate tool that is independent from and does not contribute to the national performance framework but can instead map into and support it. We hope that will ensure that the information sets that we have available to us enable us to deliver better on quality and to deliver our outcomes more broadly.
It will probably take a wee bit of time for the equality measurement framework to yield some useful data that you can apply in the development of policy. How would you have done that in the absence of meaningful data coming out of such a framework?
The data collection is on-going, and the framework is populated by the information that we already collect. One could argue that some of that information is already present.
We will continue to collect the information that we think is necessary and will assist Government and others to do their task, with regard to advancing equality. The framework enables the information to be put into a context and linked to other information, so that there is a mechanism for measuring progress. Obviously, the operation of that framework depends on our collecting the information and those data being available. The framework enables us to bring the information together in a single place, which does not happen at the moment—it is available, but it is not in a single place.
I should say that I am not the analyst. If additional information on these matters might be helpful, we would be happy to pass that to the committee at a later date.
I have the final question, which is for Angela O'Hagan. From an international perspective, is Scotland making good progress on the commitment to equality proof the budget? The other witnesses can answer as well, obviously.
I can give the short answer or the longer answer—you would expect the longer answer from me.
The issue has several levels. The first is that we have fallen behind. About 10 years ago, Scotland was considered to be a pioneer in the area. We had the newly devolved institutions and the devolution settlement, with the founding principle of equality. We had the opportunities presented by the recommendations of the consultative steering group and the financial issues advisory group and a new budget process—although whether it was new or inherited is contended. Nonetheless, we had lots of new opportunities that were responded to positively. There was a lot of space for innovation at that time and, from 1999 to 2004-05, progress was made.
Subsequently, the Scottish women's budget group raised consistent concerns about what appeared to be a conflation of narrative and political priorities, as equality became subsumed within the closing the opportunity gap framework. The distinctiveness was gradually lost, which was unfortunate given that, just as that was happening, there had been peaks—the achievement of separate equality statements in the budget and the separate equality statement on closing the opportunity gap. Since the peak in 2004-05, we have fallen away. I hope that the re-energising in the committee and EBAG that occurred last year will put us back on the field and back up the league again.
In the past 10 years, significant progress has been made on gender budgeting in European Union member states and globally. There is a lot more practice at Government level and considerably more direction at the international institutional level. The committee and the Scottish Government can draw on that practice in promoting equality budgeting and equality budget analysis in Scotland that would help us regain our international position.
On policy and quasi-legislative drivers, the Council of Europe ministerial declaration on equality, which was issued in Madrid in June, urges member state Governments to pursue gender budgeting in their budget setting processes. The Council of Europe issued a manual to assist in that process earlier this year. The European Commission has commissioned a feasibility study on integrating equality analysis in the budget-setting process at the European Commission level.
A lot is happening internationally. It is in all our interests to play our part more fully again in that international process. The Scottish women's budget group was born from international policy transfer. The members were aware of what was going on and of what the United Nations said at the time of the Beijing conference in 1995, when it exhorted member states to embark on equality analysis in budget processes. In our early steps, we learned from Canada and elsewhere; Scotland then exported expertise to the Basque Country. However, we can now learn from places such as Andalucía, where significant developments have taken place in the past few years, such as an annual annex to the budget on equality analysis, which includes all the data steps that have been taken as well as the decision-making process.
It is very positive that EBAG is considering an international conference to examine progress in the past 10 years. I hope that that will kick-start us and put us back into the pioneer rather than the laggard category in the international arena.
You gave the example of Andalucía. Are there any other specific examples that you would recommend?
It is perhaps useful for us to consider what is happening at sub-state level. There are developments in Belgium, and some of the German Länder have very advanced gender budgeting and equality budgeting initiatives. The Andalucía Government is not the only regional Government in Spain that is undertaking such work. I understand that, since a new Government has come into power in the Basque Country in the past few months, it has reopened the commitment to picking up on gender budgeting. Practice is also being built up in the Balearic Islands in Spain, and there are a range of examples at regional and local government levels in Italy.
The Scottish women's budget group retains our links to several of those initiatives through an embryonic European gender budgeting network, which in the last few years has met in Vienna, Glasgow—it is not all overseas stuff; we managed to bring people here to the rain—and Bilbao, where, incidentally, it rained as much as it did in Glasgow. Bilbao city council, along with the intermediate level, the diputación, and the regional Government ran a conference on gender budgeting that involved hundreds of people from various levels of government in Spain. There is a growing wealth of practice on which we can draw.
That completes our questions. Unless our panel members have anything to say in closing, I thank them all very much for appearing before the committee. I think that I speak on behalf of all members when I say that, although we welcome the progress that has been made, concerns remain about some initiatives, such as the change of remit and membership of EBAG and the production of the equality statement. We wait with bated breath to see the content of that statement and to find out how effective it will be.
As previously agreed, we will now consider in private our draft report on female offenders. I ask members of the public to vacate the room.
Meeting continued in private until 13:15.