Equal Opportunities Committee, 31 Oct 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Official Report 258KB pdf

---

Budget Process 2007-08

Good morning and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2006 of the Equal Opportunities Committee. I remind all who are present—including members—that mobile phones and BlackBerrys should be turned off because they interfere with the sound system.

I offer a warm welcome to the committee and to Scotland to members of the Equality of Opportunity Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, who are in the public gallery.

I have received apologies from Elaine Smith.

In the first item on our agenda, we will take evidence on the budget process. I welcome Malcolm Chisholm, who is the Minister for Communities, Yvonne Strachan and Laura Turney, who are from the Scottish Executive Development Department equality unit, and John Nicholson, who is from the Finance and Central Services Department.

Thank you for asking me to come to speak to the committee; I am really looking forward to the discussion—I think. It provides us with a useful opportunity to talk about the draft budget for next year and about other related areas of work that I am sure will be of interest to the committee.

This is the first opportunity that the committee has had to scrutinise the Executive's spending plans for 2007-08 since they were published. As members can see, we have maintained many of the previous changes that we talked to you about last year in relation to the 2006-07 budget. However, as members know, we must take account of a range of views. In deciding the format of the draft budget, the Executive takes account of the priorities that are set in the spending review and of recommendations that are made by the Finance Committee and by other interests. In recent years, the Finance Committee recommended that the draft budget document be streamlined and that its focus be on budgetary changes. We have sought to implement those recommendations in this year's draft budget.

Building on the work that we have already undertaken, we have continued to record relevant information about spending and equalities work in the budget. We have again provided details of different portfolios' activities on equalities issues, as well as those relating to the Executive's other three cross-cutting priorities, which are closing the opportunity gap, sustainable development and growing the economy. The mainstreaming of equalities and those other three cross-cutting themes is one of our key principles, which impacts on all the activities that we undertake to achieve our targets.

Of course, we are not complacent and we will continue to seek ways in which we can improve the reflection of equalities in the budget document while taking account of the need for it to be streamlined and focused on budgetary changes. The next draft budget will be the first in the new spending review period—that is, spending review 2007. We will take the opportunity to review the information that we present in the draft budget, to review its format, and to review the guidance that we give to those who are involved in its production. The committee's views will, of course, be considered as part of that process.

I appreciate that committee members look to the budget for evidence of cross-Executive activity on equality. As I have said, we—as you do—want to identify ways in which we can improve how we reflect equalities issues in the budget document. However, we need to bear it in mind that the purpose of the draft budget is to present the Executive's spending plans—it is not intended to be the means through which we report on equality policy.

The Executive has published a range of documents that outline what is being done on equality and the progress that is being made. Examples include the update on the report of the strategic group on women, the update on progress towards meeting the commitments in the action plan of the Scottish refugee integration forum, and the race equality scheme. As you know, with the new disability and gender duties, there will be annual reporting: the Executive will take that opportunity to report on progress across the range of equality strands.

In November last year, I contributed to an Oxfam compact disc to promote gender budgeting—I reiterated the need to connect evidence, policy and spend. The ability to reflect equality in spending plans depends on the extent to which we incorporate equality considerations into policy. Although we all accept that that process takes time, we should not lose sight of the fact that we have made some important advances: concessionary travel; free personal care; working for families; improving the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities; supporting women and children who are experiencing domestic abuse; and challenging attitudes through the see me campaign, the one Scotland, many cultures campaign, and the domestic abuse no excuse campaign, all of which are changing the lives of people on the ground.

We are making improvements that will help us to get to where we want to be in mainstreaming equality; for example, there has been a push forward on the availability of disaggregated data. We have commissioned a gender audit that will be published this year and, at the end of November, we will see the publication of high-level statistics on equality.

The Executive's mainstreaming website, which provides information on equality research and data for policy makers, has been updated and made more user friendly. Also, a new equality impact assessment tool has been developed for policy makers—that is a crucial development. In addition, a widespread programme of briefings for staff across the Executive about the new public duties and equality impact assessment is under way. The programme is only part way through and a number of departments have still to be covered, but to date more than 450 people have participated. All that work, and more, provides the basis for effective mainstreaming of equality.

We are constantly learning how to improve our mainstreaming work. We have drawn on experience across departments, in particular from our internal case studies in housing and schools and from the work of the equality proofing budget and policy advisory group. The work that has been undertaken to develop tools for gender analysis of the budget through two pilots on smoking cessation and sport has helped us in developing our equality impact assessment tool. I know that the committee has been interested in that report: it is now available on the Executive's website and copies are available here this morning.

I mentioned the new public duties on disability and gender. Those and, of course, the existing race duty will be enormously helpful in promoting equality and mainstreaming the issues across policy interests.

The new duties are outcome focused, so we are expecting to see real change as a result of the work that is being done to impact assess policies and to involve disabled people and other equality groups in shaping policy and service provision. We will also work hard to ensure that we develop clearer indicators of progress on equality. I am sure that we will want to discuss those with the committee in due course.

I believe that we have a shared agenda: we are all committed to improving the delivery of equality and to improving the life experience of people who are discriminated against, abused, excluded, disadvantaged and undervalued. How we ensure that those matters are sufficiently reflected in our policies and inform our spending is an on-going process. As part of that process, we will continue to make improvements to budget documents—we are always pleased to consider suggestions as to how we might do that. However, I continue to stress that we must balance the need to keep the budget documents workable and accessible with the many requests to include more targets, impact assessments and performance indicators. I know that the committee understands those tensions and I look forward to continuing our dialogue on them and on the wider issues that we need to address in order to deliver our shared commitment to equality.

I welcome the move towards impact assessments. You said that a gender audit will be published later this year and you will recall that the committee is keen to see progress there, so that is good news. The committee also looks forward to seeing the outcomes of the pilots in smoking cessation and sport. I understand that we will soon receive copies of the reports on those pilots.

During its budget scrutiny last year, the committee was concerned that equalities reporting differed between portfolio areas. The committee notes that the Scottish Executive has accepted recommendations that the Finance Committee made on the issue. What assurances can you give us that equalities reporting across portfolios will be improved as part of the 2007 spending review?

Reporting on equalities will improve dramatically from December this year. From then, the Executive will publish annual reports on its performance in respect of the public sector duties on equality. Those will be separate from the budget documents, but the aim will be to provide, where appropriate, cross-references to more detailed sources of information in the budget. We will also take account of equality issues during the next spending review, although decisions on the final approach to the review will not be made until after May next year.

Recently the equality unit organised a workshop with members of the equality proofing budget and policy advisory group. They have developed constructive suggestions for future equalities reporting in the budget. We would like those suggestions to be considered seriously, with a view to having equality issues reported on appropriately in the budget, with clear referencing to the detail of our equalities work in the forthcoming annual reports.

That is very good news that will be welcomed by the whole committee. I am keen to know what the Scottish Executive can do to ensure that future budget documentation more adequately reports the equalities impacts of changes to spending plans. Will the measures to which you have just referred ensure that that happens, or does more need to be done?

The measures will certainly help, but there are other issues. We intend to review the format of the draft budget, especially to consider ways in which reasons for changes to spending plans can be made more explicit. The impact of such changes on equalities should become clearer as part of the process.

However, there is a distinction to be drawn. There are probably steps that we can take more easily in relation to targeted spending, when it is clear that spending has a specific equalities outcome, but that is more difficult in policies in which one or several equality issues have been mainstreamed. It is worth noting that the mainstreaming equalities strategy that we are implementing across the Executive does not lend itself to providing the sort of detail that the committee might like. As equality issues are mainstreamed more effectively into policy and practice, it will become more difficult to identify projects that have a specific associated spend. However, we could do more, so we will explore the issues related to targeted spending.

What impact will the existing and forthcoming public sector duties have on the way in which the Scottish Executive approaches the budget process with regard to equalities reporting?

As you know, the public sector race and disability duties and the forthcoming gender duty include requirements to carry out impact assessments. The implementation of the equality impact assessment tool, which I mentioned briefly earlier, will make an enormous difference to the way in which we think about equalities and act on issues of concern. Impact assessment is the cornerstone of delivery of the public duties. The measure of success in implementation of the duties will be whether we can effectively assess the impact of what we do, although that does not mean that impact assessment is the end of the line. The tools that we have developed make it clear that we will need to reconsider our proposals or our approach to implementing proposals if they are seen to discriminate. The duties are, after all, about outcomes. Impact assessment will be key to delivering those outcomes.

To clarify the situation regarding the impact assessment tool and the budget, I should say that we have drawn on lessons from the pilot work in health inequalities and that the tool includes questions to prompt officials to consider whether, and in what ways, equality issues will affect resourcing of policy.

The committee is concerned that, when they prepare draft budgets, not all portfolio departments are adhering to the guidance that is issued by the Finance Committee. How confident are you that the guidance is sufficient to ensure that departments meet their equalities responsibilities?

The guidance is clear about what we want portfolios to do. Portfolios have been asked to identify any changes in spend and to tell us what they have been doing that was new on equality. The purpose of the draft budget is to outline spending plans and the key issue for us is to identify where there are changes in spend on equality. I am not saying that that was always done by departments or that there was not a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing to ensure that it was done but, fundamentally, there was no problem with the guidance. There is, of course, a further issue, to which I have already referred: we will consider how we can improve reporting and, as I said, we have held a meeting with the budget group to see whether we can improve the way in which that is done.

The equality unit has been holding regular briefing sessions for officials across all Executive departments since June this year. They have been well attended and all officials have had, or will have, an opportunity to hear more about the public sector equality duties and the equality impact assessment tool and requirements. The process will yield real benefits.

There is no particular problem with the guidance, but there are issues, in some cases, with implementation of the guidance. I hope that the meetings that I have mentioned, as well as other things that are being done, will improve that side of the situation. The second issue involves consideration of related matters to see whether some of the procedures can be changed, which would, of course, lead to revised guidance. The main point that I am making is that I do not think that there is a fundamental problem with the existing guidance.

What more can you do to ensure that each department adheres to the guidance to ensure a more uniform approach across the Scottish Executive?

Obviously, the officials are directly involved in that and will consider contributions that come in from various departments. They will comment on those contributions if they think that the guidance has not been followed. That is the most fundamental process that takes place. There can be a parallel minister-to-minister process around that but, at the moment, the situation is dealt with mostly by officials.

How can you influence your ministerial colleagues to ensure that promotion of equalities is given prominence in their sections of the budget documentation and that they actively push their departments to produce such material?

I talk to ministerial colleagues about equalities issues in general, but I cannot claim to have directly addressed the guidance, which is dealt with at official level. I am not saying that I could not address the matter if we thought that there was a serious problem, but in most cases it is dealt with effectively by officials.

If the guidance was not being adhered to, would you step in or would that be left to officials?

The matter can be part of this committee's and the Finance Committee's consideration. If there was a fundamental problem, I could certainly be involved in addressing that at ministerial level for the next budget document. In looking retrospectively at the formation of the budget document, I was not specifically involved in the guidance.

Only the enterprise and lifelong learning portfolio has implemented the committee's recommendation on budget proofing equalities and attaching spend to each measure—the other portfolios have not. That recommendation was not guidance, which is why I asked whether you would be able to step in, as Minister for Communities.

I could certainly do that if there was a problem about the guidance not being followed.

You could highlight such a problem. Thank you.

Has the Cabinet had a briefing on the new equality duty?

There have been many individual briefings, but I do not think that we have had a briefing as a Cabinet. [Interruption.] I am reminded by the head of the equality unit that we have had a written briefing but not an oral one.

I have another question on finance, which is important in equality proofing. Concerns were raised in oral evidence about the level of training that finance and policy officials receive on equalities issues. How are the officials who are responsible for writing the equalities sections in the draft budget trained to meet that responsibility? I heard what you said earlier about the equality impact assessment tool and workshops. Is that part of the training?

Yvonne Strachan will speak more fully about that. Officials do not receive specific training on drafting the sections on cross-cutting themes, but they are given advice by specialists, such as the staff of the equality unit, which Yvonne heads. I mentioned the briefing sessions that the equality unit is rolling out. They outline the requirements of the existing and forthcoming public sector duties as well as the equality impact assessment tool, and they should certainly improve the knowledge and understanding of equality.

I cannot emphasise enough the important role that the equality unit plays within the Executive. A lot of its work is invisible to the public, but the unit has been an important part of the Executive since it was set up. Yvonne Strachan has been its head since the beginning. Perhaps she can explain in more detail how the training works,

The minister is correct to say that there is no specific training for individual departments on the equality sections of the budget—it is each department's responsibility to determine what it does. Each department has a finance section and people who give advice on the guidance in respect of finance. That guidance is brought together by finance colleagues in the equality unit in dialogue, so a relationship exists.

We also try, where possible, to engage with departments as appropriate during development of the budget. When we get an opportunity to examine submissions and pass comment, we do so. That is not standard practice that has to happen, although we engage in it as appropriate. If we can and do identify a problem, we refer it back.

On whether there is specific training, the answer is that there is not. However, as the minister said, the process of raising awareness around equality in general and the importance of the impact assessment and the agenda are things that we are rolling out throughout the Executive, which will—we hope—result in better outcomes.

The minister talked about the importance of some of our key strategies, such as closing the opportunity gap. What roles do the minister and the equality unit have with external organisations? For example, Scottish Enterprise has a large budget for skills and learning, which is fundamental to carrying out the strategy. What role do you have in ensuring that quangos adhere to the strategy? What work has the equality unit done with bodies such as Scottish Enterprise?

Yvonne Strachan will deal with the last question.

The important development for all those bodies is the public sector duty. They will be subject to that duty just as the Executive is subject to it. That will be a big step forward, because I am not sure whether hitherto the situation has necessarily been satisfactory.

I do not know what influence Yvonne Strachan feels that she has over those bodies or whether she has any direct contact with them.

We need to distinguish between the matters on which there is a formal or legal responsibility between the Executive and our non-departmental public bodies and those on which there is not. Of course, in respect of public duties the responsibility lies with the NDPBs rather than with the Executive. However, there is a relationship in that there is dialogue with Scottish Enterprise on equality issues. It has a unit that works on equality and we have close contact with it. However, what Scottish Enterprise does as a body is a matter for its board and, of course, for the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department, which has a sponsoring relationship with it.

The equality unit's role is to work with the relevant department and to encourage it to engage with its non-departmental public bodies and agencies on the equality agenda. The extent to which that happens is an issue that must be explored with departments—it is not something on which I could specifically answer at this time.

I want to follow up on the response that no training is given. Concerns have been raised in committee during evidence from witnesses. If the committee were still concerned after going through further papers and taking further evidence, and if the issue was raised prominently in our report, would you consider the training of officials?

Training of officials is not particularly my responsibility. Yvonne Strachan will comment?

If there is training for equality, then the equality unit has a role to play. We are currently rolling out briefings on public duties and rolling out the impact assessment process. We obviously have dialogue with our human resources and training departments about how equality can be incorporated into the Executive's internal training programmes. That would cover all departments, not only the Development Department or the equality unit.

On what we provide and what is necessary by way of specific training, the needs of staff are constantly under review internally. If the feeling was that there was a need for further briefing on the equality aspects of the budget, then there is nothing to stop the finance department and the equality unit considering how that might be developed within the Executive. It is certainly not prohibited. What we do on our training programmes depends on the needs of staff at the time. Obviously, the committee's views on the matter help to shape what we need to do for the future.

Good morning. We welcome the direction in which the Executive is going on the budget, but it is clear from the discussions at last week's meetings that there is perceived to be a fundamental problem.

I am concerned about the perception that mainstreaming tends to confuse the issue of whether money has been spent effectively. What is the point of directing money to one particular area if we are not certain how it will impact on equalities? The committee has previously pushed for specific equalities targets, which were not supported by the Finance Committee, but we heard oral evidence from the Equality Network that targets for year-on-year improvements are another mechanism that might allow targets to be set with greater flexibility. What are your thoughts on that suggestion?

That is an interesting suggestion that we are happy to explore. The basic point is that we are committed to making our targets as outcome focused as possible. Having milestones, with indicators on the way to them, would be consistent with that approach. We are developing indicators for equality that are not necessarily shown in the budget. For example, the national race equality action plan, which will be published soon, will contain a basket of indicators for public sector performance on race equality. We consider constantly new indicators that could be developed, which is consistent with the approach that Marlyn Glen suggests.

I am keen that people should be able to look at the budgets and see the year-on-year improvement. An annual report is not meaningful unless it has a baseline so that people can see the improvement that has resulted from the way in which we have spent the money.

Will you amplify the point that you made about mainstreaming? I am not sure that I understood it fully.

I was picking up on the point from your opening remarks.

I was trying to say that progress is easier to identify when spend is targeted at action on a specific matter, such as race equality or domestic abuse. However, the basic idea of mainstreaming is that all the big budgets, such as health, education and housing, should be equality impact assessed and that equality issues should permeate the whole budget, which makes it more difficult to identify specific spend on equality within that. I suggested that it is more difficult to identify progress with mainstreaming. The issue is interesting. If I understood Sandra White correctly, she praised the idea of identifying a specific sum of money for equality matters. However, that could be seen as contrary to mainstreaming, the whole idea of which is that it should permeate the entire budget.

We have hard choices to make. Obviously, we do not want to use mainstreaming as a cover for not dealing with the spending issues. I hope that our work on gender budgeting and, more generally, equality impact assessments shows that we take seriously what happens in the mainstream budgets. The issue is difficult. I thought about it closely when I read the Official Report of your meeting on 5 October, when Professor Midwinter looked back to what he suggested was a golden age when money was earmarked for equality. I am not sure whether it was a golden age—we may have made more progress on mainstreaming by not thinking in that way. The debate is interesting and there may be pros and cons on both sides. In some cases, we can earmark money for specific equality initiatives, but I am not sure whether we want to extract specific sums for equality, as that could ultimately be contrary to a radical approach to mainstreaming.

If we are mainstreaming, it should be possible to see it. For example, the justice portfolio sometimes appears to be gender blind, rather than gender proofed, although there are obvious issues for women or for young offenders at which money could be targeted specifically. The fact that we are still debating the issue concerns me. Will you consider using targets for year-on-year improvements rather than hard targets?

Absolutely. Speaking personally, I am favourably disposed to that general approach to targets, but I am not sure whether that is official Executive policy.

We are trying to analyse the mythical inputs and outcomes. Do you agree that equality issues should to a degree be encompassed in the analysis of inputs and outcomes?

Absolutely. The approach of the new equality schemes is to focus on outcomes. Obviously, we need inputs to deliver the outcomes, but the main focus is on outcomes. I cannot say that the schemes will solve all the problems, but they will allow us to take a big step forward in the next year or two.

Last year the deputy minister for communities updated the committee on the progress of the mainstreaming pilots on housing and education, which you have mentioned—you said that the work on those pilots has already been drawn on. What is the current situation with the pilots? You said that the report on them is imminent.

I had wanted to bring along that report, along with the report on the gender pilots that is being published today, but it will not be published for another two weeks. It will appear on our website in two weeks' time and we will ensure that the committee gets a copy as soon as it has been finalised. I am sorry that it has taken such a long time to get the report into the public domain, but we are working to ensure that its publication is imminent. Officials will be happy to talk to committee members about its findings once it has been published.

We will have to wait until it has been published.

I am sorry that it is not available today.

The committee was concerned that although the gender pilots on smoking cessation and sport were alluded to in the draft budget, we did not have access to the report on them. We are delighted that it will be published today, although it would have been nice to have obtained a copy prior to the meeting so that we could have studied the results. How will you build on the lessons that have been learned from those pilots?

I apologise. I wanted the report to be available a few days before the meeting, but clearance has to be obtained from all round the Executive. It is certainly not the case that I deliberately delayed its publication until this morning—in fact, I made it explicit that it would have been better if the committee had had access to it beforehand.

It is clear that there are lessons for us to learn, although in some respects things have moved on since the research was undertaken. We have already begun to put into place some of the recommendations, for example through the development of the equality impact assessment tool and the public sector duties briefings.

In brief, the report explores the connection between evidence, policy and spend; examines the evidence and what it tells us about the different experiences and needs of men and women; assesses to what extent that evidence is taken into account when policy is formulated; and considers resource allocation.

The report is necessarily brief and focuses on the headline findings and recommendations for the Executive. One of the recommendations is that the guidance should be used to train officials. As I said, we have already started that process—examples are the public sector duties briefings and the development of the equality impact assessment tool. The report contains a call for better availability and use of sex-disaggregated data, on which we have been working with our analytical services division. If the committee would like more information, Laura Turney is an expert on that, among other things.

The report outlines that we need to do more to ensure that equality issues are considered systematically when policy is developed and resources are allocated. We certainly have some way to go before we can say that such systematic analysis is embedded in the process, but we are making progress. Officials would be happy to discuss the report with the committee once it has had time to study it.

Disaggregated data interests me a great deal. You mentioned data that was disaggregated according to gender. The availability of good disaggregated statistics on all the equality strands is fundamental.

Absolutely.

What are you doing about that? Without good information that can be compared, how are we to know whether we are making progress year on year?

We met the equalities commissions last month to discuss the issue and have begun to ensure that we adopt a systematic approach to embedding equalities in analytical outputs, to meet the requirements of equalities legislation and monitoring. We will work with the commissions—of which there will soon be only one—to establish a core equalities data requirement in respect of each equality duty.

We are keen to drive the full use of existing equalities data through the forthcoming high-level summary of equalities statistics, which will be published on 28 November, and through our portal to resources and information on mainstreaming equalities website, which is called PRIME. We will publish the schemes in December 2006 as part of the report on all six equality strands that I have mentioned, which will include a statement on data collection. In addition, we have contracted researchers at the University of Edinburgh to conduct a gender audit of statistics and research, which will be published early next year. We are also making lots of local-level data available on the Scottish neighbourhood statistics website. A lot of activity is coming to a head over the next few weeks.

The committee will be interested to know that, when we were rolling out the briefings for the public sector duties and the equality impact assessment tool, we started with the analysts in the Executive. They were the first people we talked to, as we wanted to ensure that they were geared up for working with the various departments and that their schemes and objectives were properly evidence based. We have been working quite hard with the analysts, in a logical sequence, to ensure that things are up to speed. They have been extremely supportive. It has been very good.

How much extra work will have to be done to collect the data? The disaggregation of data has been quite a neglected area.

There are two questions in that. One is about the disaggregation of existing data. Often, data are collected but not necessarily analysed or disaggregated using suitable categories. The other question is about filling the gaps—identifying those areas where data are not collected, or where they are collected but not in the way that would be most helpful from our perspective. That will be quite a lot of work.

This is obviously work in progress. Is there an interim end point this year, prior to the next spending review?

It is indeed work in progress in some ways. We have been focusing on certain things, such as the commissioning of the gender audit. We wanted to ensure that the sex-disaggregated data were available in the context of the forthcoming gender duty and the high-level summary of statistics. That covers the other equality strands.

There is still work to be done. For example, the Health Department has been considering its available data sets and checking where the gaps in the disaggregated data are. That is a long, slow process, bearing in mind the volume of data that are collected from the various areas concerned.

The committee notes that the Scottish Executive was not successful in meeting all its equality employment targets for the Scottish Administration. What is your reason for that?

I think that we met seven out of the 12 targets. The basic reason is the current recruitment and promotion situation. There is a low staff turnover rate. That has severely restricted opportunities for progress towards our targets, particularly those for ethnicity. I regret that. However, I do not think that that is through a lack of effort to meet the targets.

There is also a significant degree of underreporting: 38.2 per cent of staff have not declared their disabled status and 15.5 per cent of staff have not recorded their ethnic background. That is not the fundamental point, however. I am not sure whether Yvonne Strachan wishes to add anything.

The minister has covered the main issues. There is a clear programme in the Executive to promote diversity in recruitment, selection and promotion. When there is not a high turnover, it is very difficult to make a change to the existing position, as the minister has indicated. The policies are there, however, and they are pursued with vigour when they can be. At the moment, that is all that we could say on the matter.

We do not have a level playing field. The current representatives in the Parliament are not representative of all the ethnic minorities and so forth. There are no MSPs in that category. Taking that into account, I think that you have done rather well in what you have achieved.

How is the Scottish Executive ensuring that it will meet the equality employment targets in the future?

A range of activities is in hand, including a revised diversity placement scheme, targeted recruitment to maximise available options and extended mentoring opportunities. The underreporting issue to which I referred is being addressed through targeted re-surveys, changes to recruitment practice and awareness-raising exercises to encourage staff to participate in the diversity monitoring process and to ensure that our recording procedures support that. In addition, the Executive's diversity delivery plan, which was launched in July, sets out a range of actions for stakeholders throughout the Executive to maximise progress towards our targets.

The existing and forthcoming public sector duties may require the Scottish Executive and the departments and organisations that it funds to be more accountable about their workforces. Using the targets that have been set for the Scottish Administration as a benchmark, how can you progress equality employment targets for the public sector in Scotland?

As I said, we are committed to making our targets as outcome focused as possible and we are keen to work with other public sector employers on meeting their public sector equality duties. However, individual equality targets will be a matter for each organisation, because each will have its own context in which to develop them. Further thought certainly needs to be given to how we can promote equality in all public sector bodies, but the fact is that each organisation has its own responsibility and is bound by the duty to promote equality and to eliminate discrimination, so it must monitor employment as part of its own scheme. Organisations have separate schemes, so how far we can direct the process is limited.

I am sorry for arriving late; I had major transport difficulties. I hope that I do not repeat anything. We have heard evidence recently and quite a lot of concern has been expressed about the absence of the mainstreaming of equalities throughout all the Executive's budget headings. Everyone has said that mainstreaming equalities issues needs to be integral to the spending review. Given that the Executive's committed policy is to make equalities integral to the spending review, what measures is it taking to address those concerns?

We will have input into the guidance for the spending review, to ensure that equalities are taken account of as a fundamental issue. We have made some progress on mainstreaming, but I am the first to admit that there is a long way to go. The different parts of the Executive are becoming more familiar with not just the general concept, but the practical ways of achieving mainstreaming. Yvonne Strachan has talked about the work that she has done on the equality impact assessment tool that is being developed.

Progress is being made, but there is a long way to go. We want to ensure that the guidance for the spending review takes account of the issue. As Carolyn Leckie can see from the budget document, equalities are a cross-cutting theme, as they will be for the forthcoming spending review. We must build on what we have done. The public sector duties will provide a great impetus to more success.

What will happen in the Executive's departments? Concern was expressed that people did not even understand the concept of mainstreaming. It is evident that one of the biggest gender equality issues that faces Scotland is equal pay in local government, but the budget document does not refer to that. It is difficult for me to take seriously the commitment to equalities when such a requirement, which has been easily measured, does not attract a specific heading or financial commitment in the budget. What communications have you had with the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform? Was a deliberate decision taken to omit equal pay from the local government budget?

I do not think that there was a deliberate decision. I suppose that the issue partly relates to our previous discussion about how some issues are the direct responsibility of the Executive and others are the responsibility of other bodies. Obviously, local authorities jealously protect their autonomy in that area. I suppose that that is the fundamental reason for that decision. How prescriptive central Government should be in its relationship with local government is always an issue, but we generally let local authorities decide how to spend the allocation that they are given. Local authorities have to follow equal pay legislation and will be subject to the equality duty, so they need to take action on those issues, but the responsibility is theirs and I suppose that that is the reason for the decision.

The Executive's policy is to achieve equal pay. Although the Executive provides substantial funding to local authorities, the local authorities have said that they have insufficient funding to level up pay to achieve equal pay. That is why in Glasgow, for example, low-paid women workers such as home carers lose out on shift allowances and unsocial hours allowances for weekend working. Other women lose up to £6,000 a year from their salaries. How does that achieve equal pay for women?

I am sure that the issue will need to be considered in the next spending review, when decisions are made on how much money is given to local government as distinct from everyone else in the budget. When money is distributed to local government or health or other bodies, we need to take account of the pay bill, which is in fact the biggest item in health and local government. I am not saying that we are not mindful of the equal pay issue but, to answer your opening question, the particular responsibility for equal pay lies with local government. However, we will need to take account of that in our decisions on how money is distributed under the next spending review.

Given your responsibility for equalities and trying to push the mainstreaming agenda, my question was specifically about what communications you have had with the Finance and Central Services Department.

I have spoken to Tom McCabe about the issue, but the immediate responsibility rests with local government. However, I have said that equal pay needs to be a relevant factor in the big allocations of money in the next spending review. As committee members will have noticed, only limited scope exists to shift resources between budgets within a spending review period. Obviously, some shifts take place and those are highlighted, but most of the money is allocated for a three-year period. However, for the next spending review, the issue will obviously be an important consideration.

That leads to my next question. The committee is concerned that, if there is a reduction in resources due to the lower growth in spend that has been projected, spending on the promotion of equalities might be reduced in favour of other priorities. What assurances can you give the committee that that will not happen? We have already identified that equalities issues have been underfunded and that we have not made as much progress as we would have liked. Can you give us a commitment that further resources will be provided for the equalities agenda, or will there be a detrimental impact on equalities?

We will definitely make progress on equalities with the budget. Obviously, our ability to do many things will be determined by, among other things, the overall amounts of money available, which we do not know at present. I do not for a moment think that there will be reductions in budgets, but we may not have the same level of growth that we have enjoyed in the past two spending reviews. Obviously, that presents us with some difficult decisions and choices. We will need to be even more focused on prioritising and getting more out of existing resources, but that in no way means that we will lessen our commitment on equality issues. The progress that we have made on the public sector duties will ensure that equality issues are more prominent than they have been in the past, but that will not get rid of the fact that we will face some hard choices.

Minister, in your opening statement, you said that there might be wider issues that should be considered. This is not a budgetary issue; I am looking for some advice from your good self.

Is there or should there be such a thing as equality of right of tenure for a tenant? I am asking this because two elderly tenants who live in terraced houses in Holytown, just outside Motherwell, have been served with eviction notices, despite the fact that one of them, who is 70 years old, was born in that house and his neighbour, who is 80, has lived there for 40 years. Their private landlord has issued them with eviction orders. Is that quite legal and commonplace in Scotland in 2006? What can I or the Executive do to remedy that after the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006?

John, that is an issue for the Communities—

The minister talked about wider issues—

Let me finish—

This a wider issue and the minister invited us to address wider issues. I am just looking for a little bit of advice.

I think that you should write to me about that. There might well be some serious issues but it is not obvious to me that those people are being evicted because of their age; I certainly hope that they are not.

It is not because of their age; the man wants to build on that property.

You should write to the minister, John. It is difficult for him to consider every issue.

It is about equal opportunities for senior citizens. They are being evicted and thrown out on the street. If I cannot raise the issue in the Equal Opportunities Committee, where can I raise it?

I am asking you to raise the matter with the minister by writing to him in your capacity as an MSP. That way, you will be able to include all the issues involved.

At least the minister now knows that I will be writing to him about it.

I will await your letter and deal with it.

As there are no other questions on the budget for the minister, I thank him and his team for their evidence.

I suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow for the changeover of witnesses.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—