Equal Opportunities Committee,

Meeting date: Monday, May 22, 2000

Official Report 169KB pdf

---

Budget Process

I welcome Jackie Baillie, the Deputy Minister for Communities, and Yvonne Strachan. They are here to talk about the budget process, although they may be asked questions on other subjects. They will have to be flexible about whether they answer them.

I understand that Jackie Baillie wants to talk briefly to the memorandum, which every member of the committee has received. We will then ask her questions. Is that okay?

Absolutely—that would be great. I thank the committee for the return invitation. I think it was in September that I was last here—I was getting a bit lonely when the committee did not invite me back.

I welcome the opportunity to talk to the committee about the equalities programme budget. As you will see from the memorandum, our spending plan for 2000-01 is £0.5 million. At this stage, our difficulty is that we can give a broad indication of expenditure patterns but not the detail. The primary reason for that is that we wanted to wait for the outcome of the equality strategy, largely because we want better to align resource to activity. However, we can anticipate the likely areas of spend. I shall go through them briefly before we open up the matter for discussion.

First, on mainstreaming, we want to develop the toolkit, guidance and training for departments, so that we get the process bedded down as early as possible. Secondly, we want, as part of that, to develop support mechanisms for legislation and policy appraisal.

The second area of likely spend is awareness raising and training throughout the Scottish Executive. As you will appreciate, it is one thing to issue guidance, but it is another to achieve a culture change within an organisation. That is very much a long-term task.

The other area on which we anticipate spend is research and ensuring that we have disaggregated data. That underpins much of what we want to do in future. Discussions on how we take that forward are already under way with the central statistics unit.

The final area—and probably the most important to me—is consultative mechanisms: how we relate directly to the equality interests that are out there, and indeed to grass-roots organisations. As members are aware, we have the Women in Scotland consultative forum and the race equality advisory forum, but we have yet to develop long-term consultative mechanisms with organisations concerned with sexual orientation or disability. That is on the agenda.

That was a broad outline of where we anticipate spend to be allocated, and we are happy to discuss and take on board the committee's views at this stage.

Thank you. Does Yvonne Strachan wish to add anything at this stage?

Not at this stage.

I therefore open up the discussion to members of the committee.

I will kick off. You said, minister, at paragraph 7 of your memorandum:

"The Executive has clearly stated its commitment to mainstreaming equality across the work of all Departments."

Can you give us an indication of how well that is going, and of when you would expect all the tools to be developed, with equal opportunities being involved in policy development at an early stage?

As you will appreciate, the unit is nine months old. In real terms, that is quite a young age to be engaged in a mainstreaming process. We have examined a range of international experience, including that in the Nordic countries, to get a sense of the progress made elsewhere. Interestingly, other countries are all still at an early stage. For example, specific projects have been undertaken in Norway to consider aspects of mainstreaming. I do not mean to frighten anyone, but they were developed over a 10-year period. I am not suggesting that we will take that long, but the process is clearly long term.

On our current position, once the outcome of the equality strategy is known, we will take forward mainstreaming through the development of the toolkit and the guidance. It is not just a matter of the equality unit having an interest; it is one of that interest being bedded down in departments, so that they can do the equality impact assessment, the policy appraisal and the legislative appraisal right from the beginning, rather than have a unit come in from the side, if members see what I mean.

We are keen to get that process going very early on. We hope to publish the final equality strategy in September, having involved the committee in dialogue, so that the responses can be analysed and fed into the strategy from the beginning. Thereafter, we hope to have the toolkit and the guidance in place, and to get it out to departments so that they have ownership of a very big agenda.

When you mentioned how long it is taking other countries to develop the process, I was slightly concerned. I would have thought, however, that our opportunity lies in the fact that we are a new Parliament. If we do not take the opportunities now, the culture will be such that things will get more difficult in the future. It seems imperative to address at a very early stage the culture changes that you suggest should take place within the departments, instead of letting things continue as they are. Do you agree with that?

Absolutely. I did not mean to suggest that we wait 10 years before doing anything. I mentioned that just to put into context the fact that mainstreaming is not an overnight process. Naturally, if we are to achieve the culture change that everyone in this committee room wants, we should recognise that it is a long-term process. However, that is not an excuse for inactivity. Work is currently under way—alongside the publishing of the strategy—to develop the tools that we need to mainstream and to engage departments as soon as the strategy is published.

I reiterate that I am not suggesting that we will wait 10 years before anything happens; we must recognise that it will take a long time to achieve the change that we require throughout the organisation. The process will start immediately, however, and I entirely agree that it would be a missed opportunity not to start the process quickly.

I see that the initial objective is to get the mechanisms in place. By next year, that objective will presumably have changed into monitoring, evaluating and policing. Is that fair comment?

Yes, that is entirely fair comment. Much of the work will be front-loaded; we will need to establish the mechanisms, the toolkit and the working methods of departments. Thereafter it will be about monitoring the impact of what departments are doing. The equality unit will continue to provide advice and information, but we might want also to consider areas that are currently untouched. I am sure that the equality strategy will begin to unpick and identify those areas, giving us a fairly substantial work programme for the future.

To what extent do individual departments currently have a responsibility to consider equality issues?

It is the Executive's view that the process of mainstreaming should be owned by departments. Way back in July 1999, the equality unit issued guidance on how they should go about that. We are considering revising that guidance and making it far more explicit, but the departments should have ownership of the process. This is entirely new terrain for many departments, and we need to use the equality unit strategically to work with them, so that there is an understanding and appreciation both of the principle and of the practical measures that need to taken to ensure that equality is mainstreamed in all departments.

Do you agree that the fact that the group that is committed to the issue—the equality unit—is a limited resource is a difficulty? How are we currently monitoring whether the guidance is being followed? When the Local Government Committee asked the appropriate local government divisions about the impact of their actions on women and others—as highlighted in Engender's contribution to the discussion—they did not appear to have given much, if any, thought to that and said that they would welcome comments.

How do we remedy that? I presume that the same situation must be replicated elsewhere in the Executive. The equality unit is an easy target because, although it is not resourced sufficiently, it is committed to tackling the issue. I understand that it is the departments' responsibility to come to you for advice. How do you make them do that? Should the equality unit argue for ring-fencing within departmental budgets? If we do not understand inequality and address women's needs in the budget, we will end up devising budget strategies that meet male needs. How do you think that that can be progressed?

That is a very wide-ranging question. I will see whether I can tease out the key issues. Johann Lamont is right to point out that the equality unit is small. It was designed to be strategic and to act as a resource for other departments, rather than to take a practical, hands-on approach. If we had set up a unit of that kind, ownership of equality issues would have rested solely with the unit rather than with the entire Executive. It is worth persevering with getting that message out.

This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. If we in the equality unit engaged in debate and carried out impact assessments of equal opportunities for each bill that came before Parliament, all our time would be taken up by that, to the detriment of everything else that we want to take forward. Through the equality strategy, through developing the mainstreaming toolkit and guidance, and through reissuing the guidance that we sent out in July, we will start to bed down the process in departments. I hope that next time local government division officials give evidence to the Local Government Committee you will see a marked improvement in understanding and awareness.

The second point that Johann Lamont made related to the wider budget process. As members will appreciate, consistent with mainstreaming, that is a matter for the Minister for Finance. However, we have been working closely with him on that. It raises a number of interesting aspects; for example, Engender and the Equal Opportunities Commission are keen to have a gender analysis of budget mechanisms. Again, through financial means, we will start to bed down changes in behaviour.

Specific work on gender has been well developed in various countries; however, we have an opportunity to look more widely, in the context of the Scottish Parliament, to consider issues of race and disability. However, that presupposes that the disaggregated data are there and are robust enough. As not many data are available, we would be making a standing start, which is difficult to do so late on in the budget process. We are keen to accept the principles of what is being outlined to us by those organisations, but we might consider handling the issue more strategically and piloting it in one or two divisions that have the disaggregated data available across the board, which will enable us to tease out that process and to learn from it.

I am aware that a Scottish women's budget group is about to be—or has already been—established. It will mirror what the UK women's budget group does, which is to provide advice on budgets after they have been set. If we are to generate the type of change that we are all looking for, advice should be provided on budgets before they are set, as part of the bid process and the consultation process. That will take time to develop, but there is a commitment in principle to go down that route.

I understand that you do not want to get bogged down doing the work of individual departments for them in relation to equality issues, but can you ask them not to put a document out for consultation—for example, on stalking—or to issue a bill without the equality unit having seen it? It disturbs me that quite a lot of stuff seems to come out without going to your unit.

Would a reasonable starting point be for you to insist that departments come to you to ask whether what they have done is reasonable or sufficient, rather than asking you what to do? In regard to a number of issues, if the department had come to you to get something checked, that would have made the department more focused before the document was released.

The principle is sound; the reality is that the unit is in danger of being overloaded. That highlights your example of people bringing along legislation and asking for assistance with it—much time is spent on the detail rather than on the provision of advice. However, I am happy to consider whether we can offer advice in such a way that although we are not carrying the load, we are contributing at an early stage.

I was not suggesting that the departments come to you with a blank piece of paper, saying, "We have to do something about equality—what shall we put here?" They should be aware that the document will not be released or that the bill will not be issued until they can satisfy you that they have considered the equality aspects. They should come with the pages written—they tell us that it is their responsibility anyway. There has to be an incentive for them to do that work before any document is released. It would be outrageous if they came to you and asked you what to do. If something is to get past your unit, departments must have done the work beforehand. If they have not, you should send the documents back. You should not do the work for them. That is a good teachers' approach. If they have to get documents checked by the teacher, it might help.

Drawing on your experience, we will grade them as well. [Laughter.]

We will consider that, because it is a useful suggestion. You should bear it in mind that every department that is sponsoring legislation has to have an equality appraisal attached to that legislation before it can go through Parliament. That is something in regard to which Parliament has a scrutiny role.

So it is Parliament that polices that, to ensure that every piece of legislation has regard to equality issues.

Ultimately, it is for Parliament to ensure that all legislation stands up to scrutiny, including that aspect of equal opportunities. The separate and distinctive equality appraisal process and the statement that requires to be made give additional leverage that perhaps was not there previously.

Eventually, every department will have the toolkit and the guidance. Presumably the equal opportunities implications of everything should be explored thoroughly. Is that adequate? Should there be another stage to check that, rather than Parliament or the committee having to consider every piece of legislation? If it is a heavy legislative year and we miss something, tough luck—it has been missed and nobody else is particularly interested.

As part of the equality strategy, we will develop robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, which will apply across departments. The equality unit will have a strategic role and will take on board the points that you are making. There are a number of checks in the system—that is useful for bedding down the principles.

I accept what you are saying, that we do not wish to consider budgets only from the point of view of gender. However, I wish to pursue what you were saying to Johann Lamont. We have had quite a lot of input from Engender during the budget process. Are you saying that you accept what it says in principle but that you have to proceed in stages to do it?

My understanding of the discussions is that we accept in principle what Engender is suggesting. We are keen to consider a gender analysis of budgets, but in a wider context. We cannot cover the entire Executive immediately, so we might consider one or two pilot areas where robust disaggregated data are available. That is another issue which the equality unit is addressing with the central statistics unit.

Are you actively considering in which departments you will start that process next year?

Yes. We are looking closely at how we can do it, what the mechanism should be and which department should be the pilot.

One of the problems that we keep coming across in the budget process, especially in health and local government, is the extent to which the budgets are devolved. Do you see that as an inherent difficulty, and would you wish to keep a closer eye on what happens to budgets at local level as well?

Given that the signalling on potential areas of spend and on the overarching strategic priorities comes at a national level, as we start to develop the disaggregated data on the ground, that will in turn inform decision making. We would want to ensure that not only national spend but indirect local spend does not act in a gender-blind or gender-neutral fashion.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to ask you about one specific fund that you were identified with—the domestic abuse development fund. Has every local authority area pursued that?

Thirty-one local authorities out of 32 have done so—we are actively encouraging the remaining one to submit a bid. We were clear at the start that we did not want that to be competitive; we wanted quality projects to be submitted, but there was an amount available in every local authority area to plug gaps in provision and to take provision forward. That remaining authority—which I shall resist naming—will, I hope, submit a bid soon.

The equality appraisal process is fundamental to some of the difficulties that the committee has been grappling with. I am not sure that everybody understands that there is to be an appraisal process or what that is, and where the equality unit and the committee fit in. Despite the existence of the unit and the committee, proposals that are coming through are clearly missing the mark in terms of equality, and mistakes are being made. This relates to the cultural change about which Tricia Marwick was talking. It is important that that should not be allowed to happen, as we are supposed to be doing things differently.

I accept what you say about limited resources. Is the issue not then decisions about priorities? Perhaps one of the top priorities of the unit should be to provide a check and balance to proposals coming through the departments. If the unit does not do that, I do not know where else that will be done. Therefore, the system of priorities in the unit should perhaps be reconsidered, and resources should be directed toward fulfilling that function, which seems not to be happening at the moment.

This is fundamental. It boils down to a choice between mainstreaming and centring everything in the equality unit. The standing orders of the Parliament make it clear that every piece of legislation should be accompanied by an equality appraisal statement. I think that that should be entirely owned by the department sponsoring the legislation. If we change the priorities of the unit, we will satisfy a short-term need, but there will be a detrimental long-term effect. I get equally frustrated when I see things that should not happen. It is still early days, but I think that bedding down and prioritising mainstreaming and achieving a sense of ownership across departments will serve us in good stead in the medium to long term. There might be frustration in the short term, but I believe that that is how we need to approach matters.

If we do not adopt that approach, we will send out a signal not that the unit will act as a check and balance—which I think is helpful on a point of advice and information—but that that small strategic unit is responsible for all equality issues. Mainstreaming should be bedded down in departments. People might disagree, but I think that we should deliver in the long term as well as in the short term, so that the process is owned by departments. Otherwise we will not achieve the culture change in the organisation that we all want.

You are saying that in the short term we still need the equality unit at the centre, and we are not ready to depend on departments for mainstreaming.

I do not think that the work has been done to allow departments to understand fully the concept of mainstreaming. That is why we are going down the route of developing the toolkit and guidance, and bedding it down in departments.

I am sorry to keep labouring this point, but you will recognise how important it is to all of us. This is about mainstreaming and the short term versus the long term. It is unfortunate that a whole list of written questions that I have asked have not yet been answered, as I asked specifically about the input that the equality unit has had to various pieces of legislation. I fully expect that when your civil servants show you that question and you reply, the answer will be that it has had no input—none of the pieces of legislation will have passed through the equality unit. There is a tension between the short term and the long term.

Although I understand your comments both about the need for mainstreaming and about not allowing departments to shove off their responsibilities, there is an issue about what we do while that culture change is bedding down. We need to do both, and if resources are not currently available to do both, they should be. As Johann Lamont said, a way of doing that in the short term might be to top-slice resources from each department for the equality unit to ensure that somebody is doing the work. That is fundamental, because I cannot see any work being undertaken anywhere. We cannot wait until the tools are available, the mechanisms are in place and the culture change happens.

I am happy to accept the suggestion to examine some interim proposals. Although we have been consulted on different pieces of legislation, the consultation has been patchy. However, I do not want any examination of interim proposals to detract too much from the equality unit's programme of work, which I know the committee supports.

We are addressing the issue of resources elsewhere, and the committee will be advised of the outcome of that process when it is concluded.

Are named persons in individual departments responsible for equalities work?

It depends on the area. We are currently establishing a fairly loose network of colleagues across the office with an interest in a particular area. For example, such a network is considering the disability rights task force recommendations. Similarly, we have contacts to different interest groups as certain issues arise.

However, we do not have a specific designated person for equality in each department or division. We are investigating that proposal as we develop the equality strategy, which will be a mechanism to deal with the work on mainstreaming. The question is how best to ensure that we have the internal structures that will help us to deliver mainstreaming. It has been argued that the single designated person for equalities work within a department or division might not necessarily be the best person for a particular area of policy. However, your point about needing an internal equality network is well made.

One of the difficulties is that the equality unit cannot do the work and to some extent the individual divisions will not do the work. As we must find a way of making divisions take responsibility, I would have thought that forcing departments to reschedule responsibilities within their own divisions so that one person is responsible for equalities might send out a fairly strong signal about mainstreaming.

The problem is that, while we are driving for mainstreaming, individual divisions effectively want somebody else to do it for them, and if the equality unit cannot do that, the work will not be done. Unfortunately, the people who are struggling with the work somehow become responsible for individual departments' lack of willingness to take responsibility. Although I understand that you want a broader, more active and more committed network, would a named person who is accountable for equalities work help to ensure that the equality strategy document does not go out without any liaison with the equality unit?

We can certainly consider a balance between having a person specifically designated for equalities work within a division and having a wider network. The two proposals together would be useful. Let us give further thought to that suggestion.

I was concerned by paragraph 7 in your memo, which touches on the question of external consultants. Although I am all in favour of bringing external expertise to bear, it seemed to indicate that responsibility for equality was not centred within the organisation, even though the mainstream budget for staffing would not be affected.

The programme budget is obviously different to the mainstream staffing budget. However, we would only employ consultants to proceed speedily with pieces of work, and because we recognise that much expertise on the process of mainstreaming and the development of toolkits and guidance lies outwith Government. As much of the work is front-loaded, we will need the additional capacity and expertise to drive it forward. However, you are right to say that employing external consultants is not a replacement for bedding down ownership across the Executive.

I certainly support external expertise for training, which is a point that you make in paragraph 8 of your memorandum. Furthermore, I am very sympathetic to the idea of having a named person responsible for equalities work. However, given that things tend to happen more when driven from the top, is there not an argument for ensuring that all heads of department and all principal finance officers are given awareness raising and training?

Yes. We must strategically roll out awareness raising and training to impact on the people responsible for developing policy such as heads of division and finance officers. However, we must then cascade such training throughout the Executive as a whole. We must make sure that no door is left unopened on this issue.

I am worried that having a designated person for equalities work might allow other people in a department or division to hand over responsibility. Jackie Baillie made an important point about striking a balance. We should not give people an out for taking responsibility for equality issues.

Although we have talked a lot about bills and legislation and using external expertise, how much work has the equality unit done on internal issues such as the Parliament itself as an employer? How are we checking that the Parliament's recruitment practices are taking equality issues into account? For example, is the unit investigating why there is no crèche, no part-time or job share scheme, no geographical equality with the dispersal of jobs outwith the central belt?

I want to separate out the two issues, because in some respects the equality unit does not have a direct relationship with the Scottish Parliament. For example, issues such as crèche provision, which I entirely support, are matters for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

Let me focus on the unit's discussions with the Scottish Executive as an employer. The unit and the Executive have a good working relationship and we have set up a diversity working group, because we recognise that the Executive's employees should reflect Scotland's wider population. Although there are a significant number of women, people from ethnic minorities and disabled people, it falls far short of the overall make-up of the population. Furthermore, there are issues about how high people can rise in the hierarchy. That said, the diversity working group includes the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission and is supported by independent research. Our new strategy should be completed next month and will be implemented throughout the Executive.

Some committee members might have read in the press that we have conducted a survey of all Scottish Executive staff. The results of the survey, which was published last Thursday, were similar to those of any large organisation. Although three quarters of the staff feel that they have been treated equally within the Executive, we are focusing on the 10 per cent who feel that at some point they have been discriminated against for reasons such as working patterns, age, gender and so on. The diversity working group and the Executive will examine those results and undertake some follow-up work that will inform future practices.

About 9 per cent of Executive employees currently work part-time and work flexibly. We are interested in ensuring that that percentage increases and that there are more opportunities for flexible working. Those opportunities tend to help women more than men, but flexible working is also an issue for people with disabilities.

The Scottish Parliament employs between 350 and 400 staff and an equal opportunities officer has just been appointed in the short term to put together a policy for Scottish Parliament staff. I hope that the committee will be able to meet that person formally and informally so that we can feed into that process. The interviews were last month and I am not sure when the appointment will begin, but I think that it is quite soon.

Presumably all the staff from whom you have had input might want crèche facilities. That might enable more people to work for the Executive.

Interestingly enough, the Executive already provides child care in Victoria Quay. I am not sure whether that is subsidised, but the location of crèche services alongside offices is clearly helpful to many employees.

I have a brief comment about the named person. My experience of working for a large local authority tells me that the problem with relying on interested people is that they are not usually involved at the decision-making level. They can be as interested as they like, but they cannot influence time and resources or policy changes. Any named person must be in senior management and any equalities training should start with senior management. I suggest that any named person should be at a level where they are able to make decisions.

I get the sense that that is important, as is preserving a balance so that wider interests can be incorporated. As Malcolm Chisholm has said, we must start at a sufficiently senior level among the people who influence policy development and day-to-day operation. That point is well made and taken on board.

I am all in favour of the idea that the named person should be a very senior person. However, it strikes me that if we are all responsible nobody is accountable, and the issue is really one of accountability.

I am sure that you are aware of the evidence that Engender gave to this committee and to others about the budget process. Those witnesses highlighted the importance of the gender audit and the information that they had been able to provide in the past. They sought a commitment that that work would be taken over by the Executive; they are no longer able to do it because it was done on a voluntary basis in the past. I know that you understand the importance of disaggregated data, but will there be a gender audit next year provided by the Executive rather than by Engender?

I am conscious that there is a letter from Kate MacLean in her capacity as convener to the equality unit, raising this point. The equality unit is working closely with our statisticians to assess the availability of disaggregated data, on a gender basis and covering other equality interests. We intend, where data are readily available, to publish a short booklet, providing those data. Clearly there are gaps, some of which will be resolved as a result of the development of the equality strategy. I cannot necessarily give you a commitment of publishing like for like, but I can certainly give you a commitment that we are aware of the importance of disaggregated data, and we are working to ensure that we can produce a full set of figures.

This is not entirely a facetious question: I am wondering about the awareness training. Do you propose to send out senior officers with a double buggy, two kids, a load of shopping and a bus ticket? Will it be hands-on and practical really to bring home to people what it is like to struggle in such circumstances, or will it be a matter of telling someone to get from A to B in a wheelchair and see how they get on?

I do not, at this stage, wish to prescribe particular training techniques. I am sure that people more expert in this area than I am will suggest ways of driving home the message to people more forcibly. It is a matter of gaining not just an intellectual understanding but, equally, a practical understanding. I am sure that Yvonne Strachan will take your comments on board when we come to consider awareness raising and training.

As you said, minister, the finance department is responsible for taking forward the lead on consultation and the spending plans. When Engender gave us evidence in April, Fiona Forsyth said:

"We suggested seconding an adviser to work with appropriate officials"

in the finance department

"which would include working with somebody from the equality unit. The responsibility for, and the need for technical expertise in designing, the budget and the spending plans lies with the finance department, which is why we suggest that the adviser should be seconded to it."—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 25 April 2000; c 611.]

Do you have any views on that as a way forward in the short term?

My understanding of Jack McConnell's meeting with Engender and the Equal Opportunities Commission was that the suggestion was made of seconding an adviser. We were mindful to consider that and give it careful consideration, largely because bringing together both areas of expertise could be a helpful mechanism. This is not just something that somebody has bolted on. We asked for an outline of what would be done and how it would be done.

To return to my earlier point about our not being able to cover the entire Executive, it might be useful to consider strategically one or two areas to pilot. I am unaware, at this stage, of where discussions between officials have reached, but we have no objection in principle. We just wanted clarity on how things would be done and precisely what would be done. We felt that that would be useful from everybody's perspective.

I do not think that there are any other questions. I thank Jackie Baillie and Yvonne Strachan for coming along to answer questions. The minister said that she was worried about not getting an invite for so long; no doubt we will have you back soon, minister, and you might regret saying that.