Budget Process 2009-10
Under item 2, the committee will take evidence on the Scottish Government's draft budget for 2009-10, which was published last week.
In considering the draft budget, the committee has agreed to focus primarily on equal pay rather than take a scatter-gun approach. We will discuss that matter in depth at our next meeting and then with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth on 7 October. However, the focus today will be on the Scottish Government's progress with its commitment to equality proofing the budget. In particular, we will focus on the work of the equality proofing the budget and policy advisory group—that is such a mouthful that we will refer to the group as EPBPAG hereafter—and the use of equality impact assessments.
I am pleased to welcome our witnesses. Dr Marsha Scott is from the Scottish women's budget group and Yvonne Strachan, who is no stranger to the committee, is head of the Scottish Government's equality unit.
The committee invited the Scottish Government's director of finance to attend the meeting, but she could not come, unfortunately, and the Scottish Government could not send a replacement. That is a matter of regret, as we had specific questions for the director of finance, but we understand that Yvonne Strachan has been fully briefed and that she should be able to answer all our questions. That said, it is unfortunate that neither the director of finance nor a replacement was available to attend today's important meeting.
Perhaps it would be worth while communicating through correspondence our disappointment that, even with two weeks' notice, the director of finance could not manage to put somebody up. That is worthy of note.
Point taken.
I remind members that we cannot stray into political realms at this stage, as political questions are for the cabinet secretary to answer. Neither Yvonne Strachan nor Dr Marsha Scott will answer such questions.
I will ask the first question, which is for Yvonne Strachan. Could you give us an overview of the current status, remit and membership of EPBPAG? What progress has been made on the objective of making EPBPAG more effective internally?
Yvonne Strachan (Scottish Government Equalities, Social Inclusion and Sport Directorate):
I am happy to answer those questions.
EPBPAG's remit has two dimensions. It provides advice and information to the Scottish Government, and it assists us in impact assessing and progressing the mainstreaming of policy and in considering how that relates to the Scottish budget and the budget process. As you will know from witnesses who have given evidence to the committee previously, the origins of the group were primarily in gender budgeting and considering how an equality profile and framework might be incorporated into the Scottish Government's budget process.
Some time ago, it was acknowledged that an essential ingredient of ensuring that the resources that are available to the Scottish Government are used to change and improve the lives of the people of Scotland is a focus on the impact assessment of policy and the delivery of policy for the range of interests in our communities. Therefore, it was recognised that it was important for the group to consider mainstreaming in policy, as well as the implications for the budget. That is why the group has that dual role, although the two issues are hugely interconnected.
The Government has always said that, if we really want to change, that must come from the policies and how we deliver them for the communities that we serve. The finances and the resources enable us to do that. Therefore, equality impact assessment policy is at the heart of the issue, which is why it is a fundamental part of the public sector equality duties. That is the group's remit. I am happy to share with the committee the more precise description, but that gives members a flavour of what we do.
The group is composed of internal and external members. Internally, the membership has been primarily from the equality unit and the finance directorate. As you know from our discussions on the budget last year, and as we indicated to you in further discussions, we feel that it is appropriate to expand that and consider who else in the Government could be part of the group. We are exploring that with our relevant core colleagues, particularly those who deal with performance and strategy. Because we are in a process of change, including staffing change, we have not yet concluded who the representatives should be, but we are happy to inform the committee of that when that is finally done.
The group also has external representation. The principal partner is the Scottish women's budget group and we also have representatives from the Equality and Human Rights Commission—previously, the representation was from the various commissions—and from the Equality Network, which deals with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. When Laura Turney gave evidence to the committee towards the end of last year, she said that we were exploring how to improve the membership further. We continue to do that. One issue that was raised at the most recent meeting of the group, in February, was whether, in considering our future work programme, we might want to be fluid in our membership and to bring people into the group as demand requires and as we examine particular aspects of policy development or the budget. We will continue to consider that.
When we scrutinised the budget last year, Laura Turney said:
"we are seeking to broaden the membership of the group to make it more effective internally. The finance department will continue to have a role, but I think that we will also look to what we might call the centre—such as the office of the chief economic adviser and strategy and delivery—to take part in the group."—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 6 November 2007; c 80.]
To put it in a nutshell, despite that, no formal changes to the membership have been made.
Changes have not been made yet, but that is not because the issue has not been explored with people. The changes in the strategy and delivery units are part of the reason for that. A new head of performance has been appointed and she might well be the appropriate person to have on the group, rather than somebody from the strategy unit. We are considering who the most appropriate people are, but we do not have names for you at this time. There is a representative from the finance directorate, as there has been constantly, but we do not yet have representation from other parts of the office.
I want to press that point a little further. Time goes quickly in a four-year session—we are already more than one year in. Is there a date by which the membership is expected to be firmed up?
We are in the process of doing that. We share your concerns and we would like to conclude the matter as soon as possible. I hope that we will shortly have confirmation of who will attend from the relevant parts of the office. I am happy to provide the committee with the details of that as soon as we can. I cannot give a date or the exact names, because they have not been finalised with the relevant directorates.
That is noted.
Given that we are so far into the session, does the delay to which Marlyn Glen referred reflect the approach to equalities matters of the various offices concerned? Is the issue being put on the back burner?
I do not think so. The issues are twofold. First, there has been a process of change, not least because we are considering who the most appropriate person is to provide the input to the group for what the group wishes to do. When the group met in February, we discussed the opportunity in the coming period to lever real change on the agenda and agreed that we wanted to work out the appropriate points of intervention. We have not yet explored all those fully, so we may want to bring other people into the group who are appropriate for those interventions.
Secondly, on whether we have somebody from the strategy unit or the delivery unit—it is now the performance unit—the issue is not that nobody wishes to join the group but that we are considering who the most appropriate person is and how best that can be delivered. It is incumbent on us to chase that up and make it happen. Therefore, I would not suggest that people do not consider the matter to be important. The issues are to do with timing and determining the best person to undertake the role.
We will watch this space with interest.
As well as our concerns about the membership not reflecting Government directorates and about nothing formal having been done on that, we are also concerned that, so far, the group has met only once in 2008. Will you comment on that?
The group met in February and is due to meet again in October. The period between the previous meeting and the next one is longer than we might otherwise have set. That is partly a result of staffing issues in the equality unit. I can only apologise to the committee that that has meant that some actions that we might have progressed more quickly have not been taken. However, we still regard those issues as important. We are undertaking activities and we hope that, when the group meets in October, we will make progress on several of the important questions that the group raised when we met in February.
One further point that puzzles me is that, after we highlighted the fact that no minutes of the February meeting were available, as if by magic, minutes appeared on Friday. Why the delay?
The minutes were produced fairly soon after the event, but I am afraid that I cannot say why they were not published on the web before Friday. I will have to check that and get back to you.
Do the minutes reflect the group's future work programme?
The report of the meeting in February was available to staff in the equality unit. The information has been worked on and reflected. I will have to look into why it was not published externally, so I cannot give you an answer on that now. Because we are aware of the issues that EPBPAG wants to address, they have been part of our thinking in the equality unit as we have approached not only our work on the budget but our work on impact assessment and mainstreaming. That the minutes were not published externally does not mean that the information in them has not been reflected on by staff in the unit as part of our work. Does that answer the question?
I was asking whether the work programme is properly reflected in the minutes, as we have not had time to look at them to judge for ourselves, because they became available only on Friday. We will take your assurances and go back and look at the minutes.
Given the tardiness that the convener has observed in the publication of the minutes, and the apparent lack of progress on composition of the group, is there a general resourcing issue in the equality unit? Has its budget been cut or increased? What is the resourcing issue, if there is one?
We have a temporary resourcing issue. Resources have not been removed from the unit; indeed, they remain the same. Unfortunately, staff come and go occasionally, which can lead to gaps in the staffing resource that is available to us, not because of a lack of finance but because, when people move on, there is a delay before they are replaced. When that happens at the same time as there are a range of other pressures on a particular team—as there were when we were producing the gender scheme in May—it does not mean that one task is more important in the eyes of the team or the unit, but we have to decide how to carry out our tasks with staffing resources that are under pressure. We are in that situation, but we have new recruits. One new person has just started with us and they have the lead responsibility for supporting the budget work. Another member of staff will join us on 6 October. That will help with our staffing situation. It was an unfortunate coincidence that staff moved on when we had several tasks to progress. It is not a question of resources or money being taken away; the situation was genuinely to do with internal factors.
I have a small question about the minutes of the February meeting. I am concerned that the minutes were not published but then appeared all of a sudden last Friday after the committee had raised the issue. Could you give us some more information about that? Is there an intention not to circulate minutes, put them in the Scottish Parliament information centre, or send them to the committee?
Normally the minutes for all our meetings are published and circulated. As I said to the convener, the practice is for the minutes to be done fairly swiftly after the event. I need to check why they were not published or circulated.
It just seems like a long time since February—we are now almost into October. I put down a marker that the minutes should be published in future so that people can see them.
That has been noted, along with the timing of when the February minutes appeared.
In what way does the advisory group's work add value or make a difference? What specific differences has the group made and who listens to its advice?
First, there is specific value in the group highlighting what we need to do to improve the overall budget process. From looking at the profile of equality over the years since the group was established, I think that it is true to say that the ability to reflect equality, to have that debate and discussion and to question how the issue ought to be dealt with within the budget has come about because the group exists and there is a dialogue between external interests and our finance colleagues and, from an equality perspective, internally. The work of the group has allowed us to see how what we are doing with the mainstreaming of policy might better fit with our budget process. It has also enabled us to have an internal focus that links the budget and our mainstreaming of equality in policy making in a way that might not have been possible before. There is definitely value to be had from the group.
Secondly, the work that the group has done in the past has helped us to shape our tools. We have said to the committee before that the work that the group undertook on smoking cessation and sport, in particular, informed our equality impact assessment tool. As we said last year, we recognise that there is room for improvement with that, particularly in relation to how it can better marry up the budget process and the policy-making process, and we have still to undertake further work on that.
Thirdly, the very existence of a group, its internal discussions, and the Equal Opportunities Committee's scrutiny of the budget also provides us with a focus that makes our policy-making colleagues aware of the importance of the equality agenda.
If you are asking whether the group is important and valued, I would have to say that it is. Are people listening? Yes, they are. Can we do more? Yes, we can. I understand why the committee has a particular interest in the fact that we are always seeking to discover how we can develop and improve the budget process. That is the value of the group. There are opportunities for us to do more, and that is what we intend to do during the next period.
Could you give a specific example of an alteration to a spending decision or to a policy decision that was made on the strength of one of the group's recommendations?
It does not work quite like that. The group does not make a specific recommendation to a particular area about a policy. The value of the group has been in talking about how we might go about doing that. We gleaned information from EPBPAG's work that informed our impact assessment tool, and that tool is being used throughout the Scottish Government. When policy makers are developing their policies, they are using the equality impact assessment tool to assess the equality implications of the policy. EPBPAG did not design the tool, but the work that it undertook contributed to its being used and, we hope, to its effectiveness in shaping the Government's policies across the piece.
We are talking about the process that we use rather than an evaluation of individual policy areas and changes that might be made to them. Such evaluations have not been the focus of the group to date, nor has it been the group's purpose to single out particular areas that we suggest should be changed within a portfolio.
Aside from the equality impact assessment process, has EPBPAG's advice clearly changed how any other processes operate?
The group's influence on the budget's profile and presentation has been noted. That dialogue between Government and the group's external members about the budget process has, over the years, helped us to say how we can better describe what we are doing on the equalities agenda, and how the budget might better reflect that process. EPBPAG's discussions and the expertise of those who have participated have helped to shape what has been possible.
Therefore, there are two very clear changes. The first is that there is a reflection of equalities within the budget process in a way that—to my knowledge—does not exist in quite the same way south of the border. Secondly, we have an internal advantage through the tools that are available to us for our work on impact assessment.
You say that there is a difference between what happens here and what happens south of the border. I have no great problem accepting that, but it is always possible that EPBPAG makes recommendations here that are ignored. Could you give some examples of the differences between what happens north and south of the border that have been shaped because of EPBPAG's input?
I need to step back a little bit from that. I am not privy to United Kingdom budget development discussions. I am making an observation, but perhaps I should not have said that.
Okay.
My understanding is that the matter is not reflected in the same way south of the border. I am not aware that a group exists there that operates in the same way as EPBPAG.
I made it clear that Yvonne Strachan is here to answer questions of a factual nature.
I return to the question about advice and who listens to it. What is the link between EPBPAG's advice and ministers? Do ministers take the advice by osmosis? How are they party to the discussions?
Ministers do not sit on the group. It primarily considers processes and how we go about doing things, so it informs what we do internally, as officials, and then ultimately what ministers sign off or agree to. EPBPAG does not make specific recommendations to ministers for them to make decisions on—the system does not work like that. It is more about how we approach our work around the budget and equalities. It is more about the work of officials and about process.
At the meeting in February, we discussed how we might change the relationship by reporting to ministers or having further dialogue with them in a more direct way. There was some discussion about which route is the most appropriate one to take, and we considered two options. We discussed whether EPBPAG should report to ministers more formally and whether there should be an annual meeting at which issues were discussed. We have not decided which mechanism would be the most appropriate, but the group was clear that it would be helpful to have a better, more direct relationship because the group could then raise issues with ministers directly.
At what point do the various discussions and suchlike translate into actions in order to make that happen?
Sorry?
You have had discussions about the process and so on. I assume that, ultimately, the process has to be translated into an action.
Yes.
In what timeframe are the conversations about the appropriateness of methods of communication likely to be translated into actual communication or a change of direction?
With ministers?
Yes.
As soon as the group has decided which is the best route, we will suggest to ministers what should be done. Assuming that ministers are agreeable, then—
Do we have a timeframe for that?
We do not have a timeframe at the moment, but we would—
So we are still discussing the timeframe.
Yes. We have had the discussion about which route is the most appropriate. It is our task, as officials, to consider the possibilities, and it is for the group to decide which route is preferable. When that has been decided, assuming that ministers agree to the course of action, I think that it will not take long for a decision to be made about when the meeting or the report will—
So the change is likely to be made in the current session of Parliament.
Oh, yes.
Thank you for that assurance.
We have talked fairly generally. Does Marlyn Glen have a specific question?
Yes. The committee does not doubt the value of the group. However, we are concerned about who is listening to it. We know that there was some evidence in the past, so what we are searching for is some evidence now—some outputs, in fact. We agree that the profile and presentation have improved, but we are looking for hard evidence rather than just presentation. Presentation is important, but it is not everything.
What specific input did the advisory group make to the compilation of the draft budget for 2009-10, and at what stage? Can you identify any specific input? If not, why not? More generally, how did the group help to inform the budget process overall? Do you want to add anything about that?
As I said earlier, the two areas where the group adds value specifically are around the tools that we have available to us, including our impact assessment tool, and around the importance of having a profile for equality in the budget process. Both of those things have been and continue to be reflected with our finance colleagues. Certainly in relation to the budget for 2009-10, directorates were encouraged to ensure that equality was reflected in the material that they provided for the budget. You will see that some of that comes through in the budget.
The budget is a high-level document, and there are always questions about what can be reflected in it and the degree to which detail is included about what is going on across the piece. That relates to the point that the committee raised previously about whether the budget could include a description of the impact assessments that have been undertaken. We said that the nature of the document is such that that would probably not be appropriate. However, we can report on that through other mechanisms. We report annually on our equalities schemes, and that gives us an opportunity also to report on our impact assessment and the processes that we undertake for that.
EPBPAG continues to have an impact on the process. I cannot say to you, "EPBPAG did X and here's how that was reflected in the draft budget," but there is an on-going process. That is a critical point. The process of assessing our policies, and within that having an increased understanding of the relationship with the budget, remains an important and fundamental matter for us to deal with. Finding and developing the right tools and ensuring that we deliver appropriate outcomes remain important tasks for us, and EPBPAG has an important role in that.
Some of the discussions that we had in February began to drive us to the prospect of a programme of work that will enable us to take advantage of what we think is a window of opportunity. The changes that have taken place, along with the new arrangements, will enable us to make an intervention around the agenda and, I hope, to make important and sizeable improvements in outcome.
Other members will pick up on whether the design of the two options that were mentioned is right.
Would the involvement of the group in the process have been helped or hindered by its involvement this year in the draft spending plans for 2009 to 2012?
Do you mean in terms of the spending review?
Yes. Would it help or hinder the process if the group was involved in developing the draft spending plans? Has it been involved in that?
Ultimately, the development of the draft spending plans has become critical, because that is where decisions are made about how money will be allocated and how things will be delivered. That has been an important feature of the work that the group has done, and it is part of the internal discussions that we are having about strengthening the group's role. We are keen to find a better role for EPBPAG in the spending review process, assuming that we have that process again. We want to build in a better role for the group earlier rather than later. We are at the beginning of the process. We want the group to be much more involved at the early stages in helping to consider the process that informs the outcome of the spending review. We are considering that important matter at the moment.
Have you discussed with the group how it thinks it could be more helpful?
We will do that at the October meeting, on the back of the discussions that we had in February about how and where the group can best intervene and in what manner it should do so. We think that it is opportune to have a discussion about where we have got to thus far, because we are still at an early stage in the planning process for the next spending review period.
We spent a lot of time on that issue, because there is a concern about the current status of EPBPAG and we want to gather empirical evidence of the ways in which it makes a difference. I am aware that Dr Marsha Scott has not yet had a chance to come in. We have specific questions to ask Dr Scott later, and I will ask her to comment once I have asked Yvonne Strachan a final question.
You mentioned that directorates were encouraged to ensure that the equality impact assessment tool was used. How and when was that done?
The impact assessment tool?
Yes—you said that directorates were encouraged to ensure that they used the EqIA tool. How and when was that done?
Directorates were encouraged to include material on equalities in the budget. That was done during the development of the draft budget—I cannot give you the exact date, but it was during the summer. The impact assessment process has been going on within the Scottish Government for some time—the tool is being circulated around all the directorates, individual directors have been informed about it, and since 2006 there have been internal briefings about how it should be used. There has been an on-going process of circulating information about the public sector equality duties and how impact assessment should be undertaken; we run regular surgeries with individual directorates about how they should do that. We are considering how we can improve the performance and delivery of impact assessments in relation to individual policy areas. Those bits of work run hand in hand, and the process has been on-going not just in relation to the current budget, but for some time.
Dr Scott, would you like to comment on anything at this stage?
Dr Marsha Scott (Scottish Women's Budget Group):
I have a variety of things to say—I suspect that some of them will connect with the particular questions that the committee has posed.
I will highlight a couple of things. The Scottish women's budget group is keenly aware that cross-party support and the support of the Equal Opportunities Committee for the equalities agenda in general are imperative if real progress is to be made on that agenda. We consider the budget, and the process of examining budgets, as a tool that is concerned with the proof of the pudding. Much of the discussion so far has been about a particular tool—EPBPAG, which sounds a bit like a disease to me—but that should just be one of the tools in the toolkit. For us, the focus on the budget is about where the rubber hits the road.
I have a lot of opinions about and, through my work in a local authority, quite a bit of expertise in the development and application of equality impact assessments, which I am happy to share. The proof of the pudding lies in whether our budgets reflect our commitment. The process of scrutinising budgets allows us to know whether our tools are being used effectively. I have had only a cursory look at the budget, but I contributed to the Scottish women's budget group's response to last year's budget, and we could discuss quite a few areas where progress needs to be made.
Thank you—that was helpful.
We move on to the role of the finance directorate.
I am disappointed that no-one from the finance directorate is present to answer my questions, as we really need their expertise. I am afraid that it falls on Yvonne Strachan or Dr Scott to answer.
Yvonne, in your answers so far you have touched on some of the issues that I wanted to ask the finance directorate about. You mentioned in your opening remarks the importance of impact assessments in relation to the finance directorate and mainstreaming the budget. You also touched on your role with EPBPAG. Perhaps you can now put on your other hat in relation to the finance directorate.
You said that you hold regular surgeries with the various people who put forward budgets. It is a pity that, during those surgeries, the finance directorate representatives were not encouraged to come here today. I am not blaming you—I am just saying that the finance directorate is very important and someone from that directorate should be here.
What is the role of the finance directorate in relation to EPBPAG's work?
Just to clarify, the surgeries are concerned with policy and EqIAs, rather than the budget specifically.
I was just being facetious.
The finance directorate plays a long-standing and valuable role in EPBPAG. We recognised from the outset that if we were to make any headway on the agenda to move the budget forward, that could not be channelled just by the equality unit or by external bodies with an interest in equality. We considered that it was necessary to draw on the expertise both of those who deal with finance internally and of external people with an understanding of equality and finance—the Scottish women's budget group.
The finance directorate brings to EPBPAG, of which it is part, an expertise on the budget process and a sense of what is possible and what is not. Through that dialogue, the directorate is kept informed about the issues around equality, which its representatives can take back to deliver internally. Its role to date has been to enable the group to understand the budget process and where appropriate interventions in the process might be made.
We are considering how we might strengthen that role and, given the changes that are taking place, whether there are other or better ways in which we can ensure that what we do fits into the new environment and the new way of working. The finance directorate will continue to play a role—the director of finance has not always been present, but the directorate is represented on EPBPAG.
The Scottish Government's response to the Finance Committee referred to the finance directorate exploring other issues so that it could be brought closer to the budget equality proofing process. You said that the finance directorate has a role to play. Does it have the power—perhaps that is the wrong word—to prioritise equality issues in compiling Scottish Government spending plans? Does it have any influence over the Government's spending plans in relation to equality proofing?
My understanding—this comes with a caveat, as what I am about to say might not be correct, and I will need to check—is that the finance directorate is concerned with the process of managing the finance. It does not make the decisions for individual portfolios or the portfolio ministers.
Although the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has a key role in the overall budget, the finance directorate is responsible for examining the budget process and considering how it will be undertaken. It is not there to dictate the decisions or set the priorities of the public health and wellbeing directorate or the education directorates, for example. Any disagreement comes down to a ministerial decision. The role of officials in the finance directorate in relation to the budget is to work with mechanisms to ensure that the relevant information is there and the process is undertaken. If the finance directorate has a more directional role of which I am not aware, we will inform the committee.
So you cannot give the committee evidence of prioritisation by the finance directorate in equality proofing.
No.
You touched on the spending review and the drafting of spending plans, which Bill Wilson and Hugh O'Donnell mentioned. At what stage in the budget process can EPBPAG make the most meaningful contribution? What would that contribution be? I think that you have talked about EPBPAG's role, but if you were wearing a finance directorate hat, would your answer be different or the same?
In answering Mr O'Donnell, I said that in the broad sweep of things, the spending review is important. Involvement is needed as early in processes as possible so that we can consider how best we might develop plans. I think that the finance directorate and the equality unit share that view. The earlier that we are involved in discussions about developing the approach, the better that is for outcomes.
As we explained, the issue during the spending review was that major changes were occurring, so the discussion was not at the same level as it might have been on other occasions. We want to consider how to remedy that in the coming period, when we have a window of opportunity to draw on what we have learned if another spending review occurs.
May I ask a follow-up question?
I ask you to be brief, as we are fighting against the clock.
I know that we are.
I understand that the finance directorate cannot tell ministers, "This is what should be done," but if EPBPAG told the finance directorate to consider equality impact assessments and early involvement, would the finance directorate look at giving such advice to ministers?
I understand what you say. As a process or a way of doing things, that would be appropriate for the finance directorate to consider, and it would consider doing so. I said that the finance directorate's role is not to dictate policy priorities for other portfolios or ministerial decisions. The finance directorate has a role to play in developing the process, the way of working and the approach that can be taken. Any discussion about how we would work in the build-up to the next phase would need to take place between the finance directorate and the equality unit.
I believe that Hugh O'Donnell has a question for Dr Marsha Scott.
I am increasingly concerned that poor Yvonne Strachan will end up with a split personality from having to address issues that are not her direct responsibility. Either witness can answer my questions. What evidence is there to show that the draft budget has been subjected to equality impact assessment? What improvements, if any, have been made to the existing equality impact assessment tools or the tool that is in development?
I return to an earlier point. All the policies that the resources that are available in the draft budget will progress are being impact assessed. Throughout the Government, we have been asked to think about the equality implications of our decisions, as with all our activities, in the same way as portfolios were asked to consider equality information for presentation in the budget document. That process is on-going, so the committee should be able to see how the policies that the Government delivers reflect equality because they have been equality impact assessed. That is the bottom line.
You asked how we are improving the tool. We developed the tool that we currently use with external and internal groups, and it was informed by EPBPAG's work, as I said. We are discussing with EPBPAG how to improve the budget element of the tool. The tool asks people to consider resources, but that section needs to be strengthened, particularly in the light of discussion about how easy it is to use the tool to help people examine resources when they assess the impact of policy. We are considering how to improve that, but we have not finished that work yet, so I cannot demonstrate it. However, we hope to have an improved tool to use in the coming period.
I will add comments that address Hugh O'Donnell's questions and a few other matters, so cut me off if I go on for too long.
On evidence of equality impact assessment in the budget, we can rely on much of the analysis of the original budget, because the draft budget is linked heavily to that. The Scottish women's budget group found the original budget quite a disappointment on equality. We could identify no equality impact assessment of the original budget or even of individual programmes or budgets in it. Our best guess was that that budget would worsen rather than improve inequalities, for which the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
We were extraordinarily aware of the context in which the original budget was devised, which included the move to single outcome agreements and the new Government's position. We had a sense of willingness and of a commitment to and a vision for improving equality and using that to address our economic goals and all the other aims throughout the Government that we cannot achieve without addressing inequality. However, we felt that the skills of the people who wielded the tools were not yet developed enough to be evident. The problem is that in the draft budget—at which I have had only a cursory look—the fact that equalities are a priority is even less evident than it was in the prior budget.
That brings us to an equality impact assessment issue that is important to the Scottish women's budget group. A window of opportunity exists as a result of the new single outcome agreement process, its focus on outcomes and the new Equality and Human Rights Commission to develop equality impact assessments as a tool to shine a light on what lies between having good intentions and good political will and achieving the vision of a fairer Scotland in which opportunity gaps have been closed and inequalities have been addressed. The murky bit is in the middle and in the doing.
Equality impact assessments have a key role to play, as does the equality proofing of budgets, but they are not the same process. We need to be clear about the differences between the processes and committed to making both work. I have been involved in organising quite a few equality impact assessments locally and nationally—United Kingdom-wide and Scotland-wide. In my experience, the difficulties with the assessments relate not to our expertise in policies and programmes, but to the fact that we have a shallow understanding in many cases of the true impact of inequality, gender issues and what underlies the outcomes that we would like to change.
This is an opportunity for the Government to take a real leadership position and deliver transparent and yet visible impact assessments that are a model for those who are struggling in other sectors. We simply cannot wait for 10 years to start using this tool; after all, there is a duty on the whole public sector to deliver equality impact assessments now. We must realise that this is our window of opportunity—before people start to see equality impact assessments as a tick-box exercise instead of using them to provide analysis that helps us to deliver budgets and policies that improve equality indicators.
That said, the whole process requires a change in the relationship between the folks in Government who are tasked with delivery and the people who have the most expertise in this area. Of course, some of those people are on EPBPAG, but the fact is that we are not tapping a broader and deeper understanding of the impact of the Government's economic decisions on different equality groups. I believe that that reflects the nature of previous relationships and historical mechanisms in which the Government's response would take the form of an after-the-fact consultation exercise. When are we going to have contact, discussion and debate about our questions on equality in spending mechanisms, particularly the spending review?
Instead of simply having a consultation process, we need some form of engagement to ensure that Government works with the people who have the expertise in making impact assessments work. In fact, there is historical precedent for taking such an approach, particularly in the area of violence against women that Yvonne Strachan has done such good work in. The point is that, if we continue to see assessments as a tool instead of something that delivers outcomes, they will sit on a shelf, gathering dust.
My comments might appear contradictory, but the point is that, instead of simply talking about all the processes that we have, we need to focus on outcomes and set targets. As a result, we must think not only about the equalities targets that we want from directorates, which should be set in the budget, but about who will take responsibility for and report on them. It cannot be the equality unit; this work must be mainstreamed. That can happen only if we give people the necessary skills to carry out equality impact assessments, which will require them to engage early with those who have the expertise.
In summary, I believe that, instead of responding to a budget that has already been decided, we need to focus on outcomes and engage in the process much earlier and in a more iterative way.
Your point was very well made.
There are only three questions left. Given that we have really run over time, I ask that both questions and answers be as brief as possible.
Like Sandra White, I am very disappointed that the director of finance is not present this morning. I realise that that is not Yvonne Strachan's responsibility, but the situation is very regrettable.
Pilot studies carried out in 2005 by EPBPAG led to specific guidance on equality proofing spending allocations. Has that guidance been formally applied? If not, is there any specific reason why not?
Are you talking about the pilots on smoking cessation and sport?
Yes.
As I said earlier, those two reports highlighted a number of important recommendations and pointers, particularly with regard to our policy work, on which we drew in shaping the impact assessment tool and guidance that have been in use since 2006. Indeed, the reports will continue to shape our thinking on this matter, because they also contain ideas on resourcing in impact assessments.
Although the evidence provided in those pieces of work is obviously still available to the two relevant portfolio interests, things have, as you will appreciate, moved on since 2005. We certainly want to draw what lessons we can from those two pilots, but we cannot say that everything that happened in 2005 still obtains in those policy areas. For example, the change in Government has meant a change not necessarily in emphasis but in the way we look at the matter.
As I say, the work in the pilot studies remains important and indeed was drawn on to create the tools that we now use. If we can use it to improve our EqIA tool even further, we will certainly do so.
I make a plea for brevity in the two remaining questions.
In that case, I will knit my two questions together, if that is okay. That said, they do not seem to differ that much.
With regard to equality proofing, Dr Scott said that the whole process could last for ever if we do not curtail the debate and simply deliver. However, I want to ask about the progress that has been made to date and try to look a little bit into the future. On 22 May 2000, the then Minister for Social Justice told the Equal Opportunities Committee that mainstreaming equality was a long-term process and indicated development over "a 10-year period".
Of course, that was eight years ago. Given that the draft budget spending plans cover the period 10 years on from the Scottish Executive's original commitment to equality proof the budget, are you able to provide any evidence of the progress that has been made? Secondly, what would you expect to see in, for example, yearly reports from EPBPAG and the finance directorate that would show that such work was being taken forward?
It is clear that between May 2000 and now there has been substantial progress in the equality agenda, and at different stages we have reported on various developments and improvements. The process of mainstreaming equality and the development of the equalities agenda across the Scottish Government's various policy areas have been reflected in very real outcomes, such as changes in legislation and policy and an increase in resources for certain areas of activity, not least in tackling violence against women.
With regard to the budget, I am not sure whether your question refers to mainstreaming in general or to specific areas. Given your reference to the process since May 2000 being a long one, I assume that you want to know about the general changes that have taken place since then. As I have said, a lot has happened in that time.
I believe that your second question was about what we might put in a report from EPBPAG to ministers.
That is right.
One possibility that the committee might consider is that the group might report on what had been done over a specific period and, more important, provide an outline of what should be changed in future.
One of the advantages of having such a group is that it can look at how things can be improved; it is not just a reporting mechanism on what has gone before. I would have thought that, if the group was to report to anyone, part of that would involve a look ahead, as well as a look back, to reflect on what might be done to improve the overall situation and to advise the minister.
Can I add to that?
Please be brief, Dr Scott.
Given that we had 10 years from 2000, we have a hell of a lot of work to do in the next two years.
There is evidence of progress on mainstreaming. The fact that a component of Government is tasked with mainstreaming is a major step forward. However, if we are to come anywhere near making major improvements in the near future, we need to be much more strategic and we need to have a plan for mainstreaming that involves cross-directorate planning. We need targets to be set and we need to get ministers—or whoever the committee thinks is appropriate—to report on them. We need a plan that involves making strategic progress on mainstreaming, perhaps in key areas of government, rather than getting everyone to take on the task en masse without an adequate assessment of the resources that would be needed.
To get down to nuts and bolts, there should be regular reporting on training needs and skill building within the Government. We would want to know what data should be reported regularly, to inform planning, help with the equality impact assessment and measure success. We need mechanisms for sharing learning. I believe that processes were identified in the pilots that could be disseminated and integrated into other policy making and project planning elsewhere.
We should have an environment in which there is regular engagement with equalities groups to tap into their advice and to create the critical-friend relationship, which has been difficult in the current environment.
Given that we have our adviser with us, I ask her to sum up briefly.
Dr Ailsa McKay (Adviser):
Given that the focus has been on asking EPBPAG consistently for evidence of progress, there might be value in seeking some reporting mechanism, which, as both witnesses have suggested, might include evidence on training. Perhaps the committee should formally seek clarification on how such reporting mechanisms will evolve and what they will include. They might alleviate the need to take evidence on the issue time and again, save time and be a better use of resources.
The witnesses said that they were keen to strengthen the role of EPBPAG. The committee should welcome that, but members might also wish to pursue the issue of the role of the Scottish Government finance directorate, which has been raised many times this morning. The committee might wish to seek evidence of the directorate's commitment. If the directorate is being informed about the work of EPBPAG, at what level is that happening and which division in the directorate is taking responsibility for being informed and for taking work forward?
On targets, the committee might wish to revisit the work of the pilots. Much emphasis has been placed on how the pilots influenced progress, with regard to informing the development of the EqIA, but there is no evidence that the outcomes associated with the pilots influenced the targets. For instance, last year's budget did not indicate any gender-aware target with regard to smoking cessation. This year's budget does not indicate any gender-aware target with regard to spending on sport. Given the emphasis on the Commonwealth games, the committee might wish to keep an eye on that in future.
Thank you for that. We will take up some of the points that have been raised with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth when he appears before the committee.
It remains for me to thank the witnesses for appearing today. I realise that Yvonne Strachan had the difficult job, through no fault of her own, of standing in for and putting herself in the shoes of finance officers, for which we thank her. If the witnesses want to send the committee any further clarification of their answers, we will be pleased to receive it.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—