Gender and Well-Being Interactions between Work, Family and Public

Policies

COST ACTION A 34

Fourth Symposium:

Gender and Well-being: the Role of Institutions from Past

to Present

25th -28th June 2008

CSIC – Consejo Superior de Investigación Científica Madrid – Spain

Please, do not quote without author’s permission

Institutional Frameworks and Gender Mainstreaming: Support for Gender Budget Analysis in Scotland post-devolution (1999-2007) Angela O´Hagen Abstract

This paper focuses on attempts to promote gender budget analysis within the

Scottish governmental institutional framework from 1999 to 2007, following the

creation of a Scottish Parliament and direct government in Scotland. Using the

experience of the Scottish Women’s Budget Group as a case study, it considers

the role of institutional actors and structures within the parliamentary process

and civil service. It examines the characteristics of the relationship between

governmental institutions and ngo’s, and the extent to which it has contributed to

progress on gender budget analysis. It identifies trends in the policy and process

issues faced by the parliamentary Equal Opportunities Committee and questions

the extent to which an approach of equalities mainstreaming has hindered or

helped the progress of gender budget analysis against a wider backdrop of

changing legislative and policy context for equality across the UK.

Introduction

The creation of a Scottish Parliament and devolved government in Scotland,

heralded a new era for equalities. Within the range of pro-reform coalitions

prevalent at this time, drawn from political parties and across civil society, the

movement for gender balance in elected representation and the promotion of

women in political life had a significantly high profile (Breitenbach and Mackay,

2001; O’Hagan 2001). This increase in activity and visibility of gender issues,

and renewed dynamism of the women’s movement following the 1995 CEDAW

Conference, and the prospect of political change in Scotland “marked a period of

significant political and economic change in Scotland which served to present

women activists in Scotland with an opportunity to work together and make a

difference” (McKay et al 2002, 3).

This paper explores how the drive for change in governance through devolution,

and greater awareness of gender policy at the national and international levels

created an environment receptive to Gender Budget Analysis (GBA). The role of

the institutions and departments of the new governmental structures in Scotland,

the Scottish Women’s Budget Group (SWBG), and other external bodies

2

supportive of GBA are examined. The paper draws on evidence from the Scottish

Executive1, Scottish Parliament and SWBG to analyse emerging trends in the

relationships between the stakeholders, and approaches to the conceptual and

process issues arising in promoting GBA in Scotland.

The paper begins with the chronology of gender responsive budgeting in

Scotland, and ends in appraising the current situation and recent changes in the

institutional framework for equality. Section One sets out brief historical

background to the governmental and institutional structures in the devolved

Scotland, assessing them in the context of favourable conditions for gender

budgeting. Section Two outlines the development and role of the Scottish

Women’s Budget Group (SWBG) in promoting gender analysis in the Scottish

Budget process, locating this in the prevailing policy context of promoting

equalities mainstreaming. Section Three considers the institutional relationships

which have developed in the pursuit of GBA in Scotland; and leading towards the

paper’s conclusion Section Four revisits the ‘favourable conditions’ to consider the

extent to which they still prevail. It highlights the changing political and

legislative environment for equalities and the UK level, including major

institutional and legal re-structuring and the potential impact they might have on

the continued pursuit of gender responsive budgeting in Scotland.

Section One

Devolution to Scotland within the United Kingdom means the transfer of power

from the UK government at Westminster, to direct government from Scotland

through the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government (known until 2007 as

the Scottish Executive) across a wide range of public policy areas. The many

facets of devolution have been well documented and revisited in a wide literature

which includes the role and influence of the campaigns for women’s

representation as well as the promotion and adoption of gender ‘equality’

mainstreaming in the new institutions, (Mackay and Bilton 2000; Breitenbach &

Mackay 2001; McKay and Gillespie 2006).

Within the campaign for devolved government, a campaign for gender balance in

the Scottish Parliament was clearly located in the context of policy and political

1 Throughout the paper, the government – ministers and civil servants – are referred to as ‘the Scottish Executive’, as created in the Scotland Act, until 2007 when the SNP formed a minority government, re-titled the Scottish Government.

3

change within “wider debates on devolution and democratic renewal and a

shorthand for a desire for a new sort of politics”, (Breitenbach and Mackay 2001,

16). There were clear aspirations for a different political style as well as new

political structures as part of a changing discourse on governance (op.cit. p.16).

Consistent with being “broad-based and pluralist” the women’s movement in

Scotland, although small, had a long history in looking internationally for learning

and inspiration (Breitenbach and Mackay, 17). In “continuing to find ways of

promoting change” (op.cit, pp.3, 15) the UN Conventions and NGO conferences

are acknowledged as important catalysts for the campaign for equal

representation in decision-making and political life more generally. The Beijing

Platforms for Action and the commitment to gender mainstreaming and gender

sensitive budgeting therein offered a new opportunity both in the substantive

content of policy proposals for gender equality, and in terms of their framing

within the coalitions for devolution (O’Hagan 2001).

In 1997, following the successful referendum for devolution, the Consultative

Steering Group (CSG) was established to devise rules and procedures for the

new Scottish Parliament. It set out four founding principles: openness and

accountability, transparency and, crucially, that “the Scottish Parliament in its

operation and its appointments should recognise the need for promote equal

opportunities for all” (CSG Report 1998, 3). The CSG further proposed that to

give practical effect to the principle of equal opportunities there should be a

mandatory Equal Opportunities Committee of the Parliament; a specific

department within the Scottish Executive (which became the ‘Equality Unit’); and

that “the aim must be to embed into the process of policy formulation and the

way in which the Parliament works, the principles and commitment to promote

equal opportunities for all and to eliminate the effects of past discrimination”

(op.cit:146). This effectively positions equal opportunities at the heart of public

policy in Scotland along with the machinery, potentially, to deliver effective

policy analysis and content.

In addition to structural support for equality mainstreaming there were key

policy drivers that would act as leverage for the promotion of GBA. Firstly, in

February 1998 the Financial Issues Advisory Group (FIAG)2 , echoing the CSG,

proposed that budget process of the Scottish Parliament should be ‘open,

2 FIAG was set up 1998 “to recommend the rules and procedures for the handling of financial issues by the Scottish Parliament

4

accessible and accountable to the people of Scotland’. The Public Finance and

Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 enshrined these elements in legislation.3

Secondly, the first Scottish Executive Equality Strategy: Working Together for

Equality was published in November 2000. Equalities mainstreaming was the

cornerstone of the strategy and the approach to governance and policy making,

based on a multi-strand approach to equality analysis consistent with the broad

definition of equalities set out in Schedule 5 of the 1998 Scotland Act:

“'Equal opportunities' means the prevention, elimination or regulation of

discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on

racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation,

language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs

or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions” (Scottish

Government website).

It is important to note the breadth of the definition of equal opportunities and the

use of the concept of ‘equalities’. Within this framework, as the analysis in this

paper demonstrates, different aspects of “equality” were to be given equal weight

in policy considerations, resulting in a dilution of focus and potency of questions

of gender equality and measures to eradicate sex discrimination.

Crucially in the process of securing political commitment to and engagement in

GBA, the Equality Strategy committed the Scottish Executive to “assess the

equality impact of spending plans and decisions, as part of the mainstreaming

agenda” (Scottish Executive, 2000:17). This published commitment followed an

important response from the Minister for Finance in January 20004 who welcomed

the “new ideas and ways in which to improve the budget process” that he thought

a gender audit as proposed by the new Scottish Women’s Budget Group could

offer.

Using the leverage provided by these developments and its close relationship with

the Equal Opportunities Commission in Scotland5, SWBG lobbied for the creation

3 Scottish Parliament Briefing, “The Annual Budget Process”. Subject Map Devolved Area Series 00/07 (Revised) 9 April 20024 Jack McConnell, 26 January 2000,Stage One Debate on Budget (Scotland) Bill 2000/2001-2001-2002 5 The EOC was the statutory body for sex equality established under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It has since been disestablished and its powers have transferred to the Equality and Human Rights Commission established in October 2007.

5

of a cross-departmental structure to support the implementation of this

commitment. The Equality Proofing Budgets Advisory Group (EPBPAG) was

formed in 2000, with membership drawn from the Finance Dept. and Equality

Unit of the Scottish Executive, the three statutory equality commissions then in

existence, the Equality Network6, and the SWBG.

The conditions in Scotland at this time offer a close match to a list of ‘favourable’

conditions for gender budget initiatives drawn from experiences globally. From

comparative studies by Budlender (2003, 2005), and analysis of the early

Australian experience by Sharp and Broomhill (2002), these favourable conditions

include a range of variables, set out in the following table.

Conditions Situation in Scotland

• Political will Political party support; agreement to the CSG principles; inclusion of equality provisions in the Scotland Act.

• Political change Devolved government; women’s elected representation.

• Social change Devolution; women’s movement; demands for open government.

• External pressure Women’s organisations in Scotland; international developments, including EU and UN; European Structural Funds.

• Pro-equality political climate Political party support; CSG principles; UK government; EU legislative developments.

• Commitment to gender mainstreaming

Scottish Executive Equality Strategy; Equal Opportunities Committee in Parliament; Equality Unit in Scottish Executive.

• Stakeholders and players in place

Key political support from consecutive First Ministers7 and other Cabinet members; Engender and Women’s Budget Group; women in Parliament (limited support).

• Policy context supportive Equality Strategy; European Structural Funds;

• Commitment to external policy drivers

UN Platforms for Action; CEDAW; European Structural Funds.

• Positive approach to governance Modernising government agenda of ‘New Labour’; devolution principles of openness, accountability and transparency; Scotland Act 1998.

• Equality or ‘women’s’ “machinery” in place within the institutional arrangements.

Equality Unit established in Scottish Executive; 37% of new MSPs were women.

6 One of the main networks of lesbian, gay, trans-sexual and trans-gender organisations in Scotland. 7 Donald Dewar, First Minister 1999-2000 launched “Equalities Mainstreaming Checklist” in 2000; Jack McConnell as Finance Minister, and subsequently First Minister was supportive.

6

As McKay et al have stated, “policy interventions directed at redressing gender

inequalities in Scotland are occurring within a dynamic political and economic

environment,” (McKay at al 2002, 2). This environment supported the

emergence of the SWBG and their early access to government. The development

and character of the group is explored in the following section.

Section Two: Scottish Women’s Budget Group

Formed in 1999, the SWBG is a voluntary group of around 20 activists committed

to promoting gender equality by influencing and changing the budget process in

Scotland. A central proposition of the group is that public policy will be improved

and enhanced by effective gender analysis at each stage of policy development,

implementation and evaluation, including the key process of resource allocation

as represented by the budget process (SWBG, 2008).

The origins and experience of the SWBG have been the subject of commentary in

the UK and internationally, (see Jubeto 2007; Mackay et al 2005; McKay 2003,

2004; McKay et al 2002; McKay & Gillespie, 2006; O’Hagan, 2001; O’Hagan and

Gillespie 2008). As already discussed, a “window of opportunity for the women’s

lobby in Scotland to push for policy change” (McKay et al 2002, 5) clearly

prevailed in 1999-2000 when the SWBG was first seeking to engage with the new

institutions and policy process. At that time there were strong links between

women newly in Parliament and the civil service with women’s organisations

externally. These have weakened somewhat over time as women’s organisations

in Scotland have changed, demised, or new ones been created; women in the

Scottish Parliament have identified themselves with other issues, or have left the

Parliament. Relations between SWBG and individual parliamentarians – women

and men – continue to be positive.

The SWBG itself adopted a strategy of outsider influence, but sought to use the

institutional levers offered in the consultation phases of the budget process, the

creation of EPBPAG and the parliamentary scrutiny process. Sharp and Broomhill

propose two “broad models” of “gender sensitive budget initiatives: ‘inside

government’ or ‘community-based’ in terms of their location and primary

institutional arrangements” (2002, 28). Although they categorise the Scotland

experience as an ‘inside government’ initiative, the reality is that it fits neither

7

model neatly. SWBG started outwith government and remains so choosing not to

pursue funding support from the state or other state-sponsored funds.

SWBG has consistently sought to forge effective working relationships with

politicians and officials to promote change in the budget process with a view to

broader change in public policy processes and outcomes in terms of gender

equality. It is not properly a ‘community-based’ initiative either, as it has not

extended its reach in terms of membership or activities to wider grassroots or

community based women’s organisations in Scotland. SWBG is considered a

credible and authoritative voice (Mackay et al 2005), and has consistently

“punched above its weight” in terms of access and reach into parliament and

government8. The group has consistently presented an analysis of government

spending plans in a range of ways including: responding to formal consultations

on budget and policy proposals and presenting evidence and commentary to

committees in the Scottish Parliament (see www.swbg.org.uk and

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/index.htm).

Awareness of the fiscal context in which the Scottish Women’s Budget Group

operates is important. All aspects of the UK tax and benefits system are reserved

to the UK Government at Westminster. The Scottish Parliament has the power to

vary local taxes, but to date no administration has utilised that power. The

Scottish budgetary process therefore is solely concerned with expenditure against

the policy objectives of the Scottish Government, and has no revenue raising

function. This has meant in practice that the work of the SWBG has closely

followed the budget cycle, focussing its collective responses on the Spending

Plans and Budgets proposed by the Scottish Executive (now Scottish

Government) and authorised by the Scottish Parliament.

SWBG continues to be represented on EPBPAG, and members have also been

involved in a professional capacity in a number of projects commissioned by the

Scottish Executive. The two principal projects were an early exploratory research

study, Exploring The Role Of Gender Impact Assessment In The Scottish

Budgetary Process (McKay and Fitzgerald 2002); and in 2003 and 2004 members

worked directly with civil servants in Finance Dept. or policy departments on

specific pilot studies of gender budget analysis (Scottish Executive 2006).

8 http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=234666&Lang=1&PARLSES=392&JNT=0&COM=13186

8

Two pilot projects on gender budget analysis were undertaken on smoking

cessation and young women’s access to sporting activities. These exercises were

conducted inside the appropriate government departments with the objective of

working through whole policies to build knowledge and confidence in the practice

of gender analysis in resource allocation, implementation and evaluation.

Although successfully completed in 2004 the results were not published until

2006 and subsequently the pilot studies have not been developed by the Scottish

Executive or Scottish Government. SWBG has described this as a missed

opportunity by government to incorporate practical examples into wider usage

across departments and as part of the practice underpinning the compliance

measures required for Equality Impact Assessment under the 2007 Gender

Equality Duty (see Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee Official

Report, http://.scottish.parliament,uk/business/committees/equal/or-06/eo06-

1801.htm).

The SWBG has consistently been a key stakeholder and driver for change in the

budget process in Scotland as the following section seeks to demonstrate in an

analysis of the developments so far.

Section Three: Equality Proofing the Scottish Budget

This section outlines key policy documents and trends in policy issues and

institutional relationships in the promotion of equalities mainstreaming, and

progress towards gender budget analysis from 1999-2007.

Committee and Executive documents and SWBG responses reveal that SWBG has

made a significant contribution to a gendered analysis within the adopted

approach to equality proofing the Scottish budget, within the framework of

mainstreaming. However, as evidence from parliamentary and Executive

documentation also shows, this change remains marginal in terms of the policy

and presentational content, where progress over the period has been a

frustratingly stop-start, or forward-back process, with limited gains subsequently

being eroded in the next round. Recent developments echo similar comments

from Mackay et al in 2005.

9

Scottish Executive

2001-2004 saw significant developments in the progress of GBA in Scotland. In

October 2001 a seminar on GBA initially proposed by SWBG was hosted by the

Scottish Executive and included participation from international experts, officials

from the Scottish Executive Equality Unit and Finance Dept., SWBG members,

and other supporters of the project. Recommendations made at that event

included calls for equality impact and evaluation statements in the budget

documentation and at early stages of policy formulation; budget analysis pilots on

large areas of spend; and training programmes on GBA for heads of government

departments; and secondments to the Finance Department. The latter actions

have never been implemented. Progress on equality statements and impact

analysis became the focus of discussion and ongoing tension among stakeholders,

as evidenced in this paper.

A preliminary progress report on the Equality Strategy was published in 2001,

followed in 2003 by the only annual report to date on the Equality Strategy:

Making Progress: Annual Equality Report. This report presented a ‘Scottish

Budget Equality Statement’ detailing the Scottish Executive’s commitment to

“equality proof” the budget. This phrase has a specific meaning in the Scottish

policy context, given as:

“proofing the Scottish budget is the mechanism for linking the

mainstreaming of equality in the policy process with the appropriate

distribution of resources” (Scottish Executive 2003).

The 2003 report on the Equality Strategy also detailed the steps the Scottish

Executive was taking towards this aim, including consultative work with the

Scottish Women’s Budget Group, international experts and GBA initiatives in

other countries – namely Canada and the Basque Country. It also refers to

“positive changes” in the budget documentation:

“We are keen to see work on equality proofing the budget develop in each

year's budget documents. This guidance is the first stage of a process,

along with our work on mainstreaming more generally, which will be

refined and developed for future years.”

There appears to have been a peak in the gains of equality proofing the Scottish

budget process from 2002-2004, at the same time as the wider poicy context was

10

changing and almost contradictory. In its 2002 spending plans for 2003-04,

Building a Better Scotland, the Scottish Executive signposted the shape of policy

to come, introducing its plans as “working to close opportunity gaps across

Scotland” (Scottish Executive 2002a, 3). Treatment of equalities issues in this

document was uninspiring but in a further one-off exercise the Executive

produced Closing the Opportunity Gap: The Scottish Budget 2003-2006 in

October 2002. This was a significant attempt to break down objectives in the

spending plans by targets across ministerial portfolios and setting out resource

allocations against specific proposals. The statement by the Minister for

Communities claimed the plans will “tackle poverty, build strong, safe

communities and create a fair, equal Scotland where rights for all is our byword

(Scottish Executive 2002b, 3). SWBG commented however that there was little

evidence of gender or impact analysis in either the policy formulation or resource

allocation:

“Several references are made to equality of opportunity and the Scottish

Executive’s commitment to addressing inequality. However, SWBG is

concerned that there are no references to gender…and only a small

number of targets in relation to women and men” (SWBG 2002, 2).

This criticism is taken further in the analysis of equality and social inclusion

policies by O’Hagan and Gillespie, 2008:

“Whilst the Equality Strategy emphasised that all policies should be

underpinned by equality, the effect was the loss of explicit requirements to

express equality objectives within programmes and policies” (O’Hagan and

Gillespie 2008, 12).

2003-2004 saw the introduction of Closing the Opportunity Gap (CtOG), with the

Scottish Executive’s framework of six objectives and ten targets announced in

July and December 2004 to tackle social inclusion as a cross-cutting priority:

“Across all of our priorities, our aim is to close the opportunity gap

between the most disadvantaged and the average for Scotland. Everything

we do, every policy we introduce, every decision we make will be

measured against success in closing the gap, to ensure that we live in a

society founded on fairness, equality and opportunity.” (Scottish

Executive, 2003:38)

11

Following the introduction the CtOG framework, proposals acorss all portfolio

areas set out in the budget documents were to demonstrate their contribution to

a number of cross-cutting policy priorities, including closing the opportunity gap

and promoting equality.

“In the presentation of the budget documents going forward from the

introduction of the CtOG framework, proposals across all portfolio areas

were to be presented in terms of their contribution to a number of cross-

cutting policy themes including CtOG and promoting equality. There were

broad-brush statements of the Scottish Executive’s commitment to

integrating equality into the development of policy and spending plans”

(O’Hagan and Gillespie 2008, 12).

A major development in 2003 had been the inclusion for the first time in the

budget documentation of overarching equality statements. These continued in

2004 and were welcomed by the Equal Opportunities Committee of the

Parliament and external stakeholders, including SWBG (Equal Opportunities

Committee State 2 Report on Budget Process to Finance Committee, November

2003; Equal Opportunities Committee Stage 1 Report on Budget, May 2004;

Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report, Meeting 4,

2003). The equality statements do appear to be an attempt by the Executive to

respond to calls from EPBPAG and others. However these players all raised

concerns about the dominance of CtOG and the apparent subsuming, or

downgrading, of equality which were to become a recurrent theme in discussions

at the parliamentary committee.

An analysis of key strategic documents on social justice and social inclusion policy

up to and including CtoG and the main budget documents from the period reveals

overall trends in the conceptualization and articulation of equality in government

policy and priorities. These programme proposals saw a significant shift away

from women-specific references (eight and ten respectively) to a broader

conceptualisation and definition of equality references in the CtOG budget plans

(45). References to mainstreaming almost disappeared, with seven remaining in

the spending proposals, and none in the core policy documentation. Social justice

policy documents in 1999 contained 31 references to women and seven to

gender. This peaked in 2001 with 60 references in the Social Justice Annual

12

Report and 58 in the Social Justice Annual Indicators (Scottish Executive 2001a

and b).

Over the period 2000 to 2007, SWBG monitored the extent to which equality and

gender analysis have been made visible in the budget process, and commented

on progress that successive budget documents have made towards this end.

SWBG consistently reiterated its concerns that the apparent conflation of social

justice and equality threatened to erode the commitment to and process of

gender analysis of policy and equality mainstreaming. The Equal Opportunities

Committee echoed this concern and pressed ministers for clarification and

assurance throughout 2003-2006 with some agreement and movement from

ministers (see Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report

Meeting 15, 2005). Concerns remain however as in November 2007 the new

Scottish Government published its Draft Budget and Spending Plans for 2008-09

to which SWBG to responded:

“SWBG have consistently argued that the conflation of an anti-poverty

agenda, focused on relative income disparities and health inequalities, fails

to recognise the structural causes of inequality specifically between

women and men. As is stands, the approach to equality set out in the

Draft Budget fails to integrate that analysis and demonstrate

understanding that inequality is not straightforwardly expressed in terms

of relative economic position or state of health (c.f.pp24, 26, 56) as both

are significantly gendered realities” (SWBG November 2007, 2-3).

Successive governments have retained a stated commitment to equality,

maintaining it as a central objective. The reality has been that neither the

language nor analysis in policy development, nor the linked analysis in resource

allocation have remained consistent. Tensions persist over the breadth of

equality definitions, evidence of understanding of the effects of discrimination,

and now under the Scottish Government further conflation of poverty, inequality

and disadvantage9 which SWBG continues to challenge:

“SWBG are concerned that the approach to equality as expressed in the

budget, and that appears to dominate thinking, is not based on an

understanding of the nature of structural inequality and discrimination and

9 Taking Forward the Government Economic Strategy: A Discussion Paper on Tackling Poverty, Inequality and Deprivation in Scotland (Scottish Government 2008)

13

the need to promote greater equality by tackling these constants, but

rather is framed as a commitment to address inequality defined in narrow

economic and geographic terms” (SWBG November 2007, 2-3).

Scottish Parliament Committees

The Committees of the Scottish Parliament have been a primary focus for SWBG

given their role in the scrutiny process of the Scottish Budget. Of particular

interest are the Finance and Equal Opportunities Committees. The Finance

Committee has an overarching scrutiny and challenge role, with the power to

present alternative budget proposals to government. The Equal Opportunities

Committee too has an oversight role, and the power to direct other subject

committees to give specific consideration to the equalities dimensions of

proposals before them, including the Budget.

This part of the paper provides a summary analysis of the main policy and

process issues arising between the Equal Opportunities Committee and the

Executive; trends emerging from these; and the relationships between the

different institutions and external groups, including the SWBG. It focuses on the

Committee from 1999-2008 as a barometer for the climate for equality or gender

responsive budgeting as opposed to a full analysis of the Committee’s

engagement with the project of equality proofing the Scottish Budget.

Over this period the level of interest and engagement of the Equal Opportunities

Committee in equality proofing the budget process has remained fairly strong and

consistent. Clearly the first couple of years were very early in the development of

the Committee, in terms of its ways of working and members’ understanding and

confidence in a range of issues. Even in this early period members showed a

keen interest in the Scottish Executive’s commitment to equality mainstreaming

and subsequently developed a tenacious interest in progress towards equality

proofing the Scottish Budget. In this regard it distinguishes itself from other

examples of engagement by national parliaments and parliamentarians

(Budlender 2004, 24-25), and highlights the importance of such engagement

when it does happen (Jubeto 2007, 23). Discussion in successive evidence

sessions and the content of written submissions received by the Committee and

their own reports to other Committees within the Parliament reveal a number of

trends which both worked against and as positive supports for the promotion of

equalities in the budget process.

14

Policy Issues and Trends

The Committee has demonstrated, with different members over time, a fairly

constant resolve to pursue equality analysis in the budget, and at times has

grown increasingly frustrated with the nature and pace of change within the

Executive. An example of this was the failure of the Executive to inform, update

and report on the budget pilots. Commissioned in 2003 and 2004 (see Scottish

Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report, Meeting 15,2005;

Meeting 18,2006), they were not reported upon until the end of 2006. In what

could be construed as a slight to the Committee, the reports on the pilots were

published the same day as ministerial attendance at the Committee, but

members were not given advance copies (Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities

Committee Official Report Meeting 19,2006).

On a number of occasions the Executive did not follow through Committee

recommendations, or those that were actioned took considerable time. For

example, the Committee’s request for equality audits to happen within the 2004

parliamentary session was not progressed by the Executive, and only re-surfaced

again when the introduction of ‘equality impact assessments’ (EQIAs) were

introduced in advance of incoming public equality sector duties (see Equal

Opportunities Committee Stage 1 Report to Finance Committee on Budget

Process, May 2004; Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee Official

Report Meeting 18, 2006).

An overarching equality statement as a headline commitment and the inclusion of

equality targets have not been consistent elements of the budget documentation.

This has caused further lasting tensions between Executive ministers and officials,

and Committee members and external stakeholders. Multiple changes to the

budget process itself either from recommendations of the Finance Committee in

2003 or following decisions taken by the Executive led to changes to

documentation and format and have resulted in the loss of repeated and

consistent presentation of analysis and commitment to equality.

The definition of equalities has been consistently problematic raising questions as

to how methodologies modelled on gender budget analysis can practically be

extended across other equalities. Broad definitions of equality meant that some

Ministers, officials and members were reluctant to support a focus on gender

methodologies preferring instead the “greater prize of equalities” (Scottish

Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report, Meeting 10, 2001). It

15

also meant that early witnesses included organisations with other agendas and no

track record in equality budgets, e.g. Scottish Gypsy Travellers Association and

the Disabled Persons Housing Service. By 2003 though oral and written evidence

was largely invited and received from the principle members of EPBPAG and

relevant local authority and voluntary sector bodies.

‘Equality proofing’ as the adopted approach by the Executive has been another

persistent tension. Key witnesses have argued the concept is too vague, while

ministers, as well as Committee members, seem to have found difficulties

reporting on equalities specific activities visible in the budget, and the process of

assessing policy and spending proposals from an equalities perspective in the first

instance. This has become a feature of successive exchanges with Ministers and

points to an ongoing confusion as to what the process of equality proofing the

budget means to Ministers and what practical actions are being followed. It is

also a source of considerable frustration to Committee members, (see for

instance Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report

Meeting 6, 24 March 2004; Meeting 19, 31 October 2006).

The Committee consistently voiced concerns around the downgrading of equality

and the apparent subsuming of equality priorities and targets within ‘closing the

opportunity gap’ framing of policy in social inclusion. This was a constant source

of complaint and concern from the Committee from 2003 onwards, in a dialogue

with successive ministers, which lasted over several years, but did result in some

acceptance from Ministers that presentation and content could be improved (see

for instance Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report

Meeting 6 and 17, 2004; Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee

Official Report Meeting 15, 2005)

Emphasis from ministers and officials on the approach to the process, and ‘how

to’ mainstream equalities in the budget process dominated, and seemed to inhibit

activity. These issues characterize successive appearances in 2001 and 2002 of

the relevant Minister, and continue through to 2006. Inherent in these tensions

for witnesses Committee members and Ministers are apparent conceptual

struggles as to whether the objective of equality analysis in the budget process is

a matter of cultural change, a battle for hearts and minds, or a step-change in

the policy making process (Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee

Official Report Meetings 5 and 8, 2002). Successive Labour ministers stressed

the need, as they saw it to balance numerous reporting requirements and targets

16

in response to demands from external groups and recommendations from the

Finance Committee among others, including SWBG, with the need to ensure the

budget documentation remained accessible and manageable in size.

In considering the nature of institutional relationships between government and

parliamentary representatives, and the engagement with external stakeholders, a

number of observations can be made.

Institutional Relationships

From the outset, the Equal Opportunities Committee has seemed enthusiastic and

engaged in this agenda. This contrasts with the more cautious approach from the

Executive as discussed above. This serves to highlight the difference in

government and parliamentary procedures, with the former being considerably

more open and transparent and the latter more opaque. These differences could

be attributed to differences in reporting mechanisms and the open nature of the

Scottish Parliament enshrined in the founding principles.

There is also a suggestion of a hierarchical attitude towards the parliamentary

committee, characterized by a somewhat aloof perspective from the Executive in

ministerial statements and attitudes from the early days of the parliament

(Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report, Meeting

10,2001; Meeting, 15,2005; Meeting 19, 2006). In contrast the Committee took

the view early on that they wanted to work constructively with the Executive and

not to offer criticism without also offering proactive suggestions (see Equal

Opportunities Committee Stage 1 Report to Finance Committee on Budget

Process 2003-04). As already discussed, Committee members have vented their

frustration at actions not being followed through, and at the Executive defensive

position that it is for individual ministers to decide on programs, actions and

spend within their portfolios, drawing over the “veil of mainstreaming” as

described by Holvoet (2007, 284).

The need for a ‘champion’ within the Executive was clear. Reference was made

to the importance of having an insider “pushing for these changes” (Scottish

Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report, Meeting 6 2004).

Targeting the Finance Department was a key element of the SWBG strategy, in

terms of seeking to influence the budgetary process, and for the Committee - and

Ministers- to clarify the process Mackay et al 2005). The turnover of staff

however was a key vulnerability in relation to sustaining momentum and support.

17

Officials engaged in this process have changed five times in the period. While the

Head of the Equality Unit has remained the same, supporting officials have also

changed numerous times.

The budget is of course a political process and is manifest in several ways. The

cross-party nature of the parliamentary committees has been a positive measure

as pressure for action on this agenda has come equally from members of the

governing party and opposition members. This apparent solidarity wobbled

slightly at the first appearance of an SNP Scottish Government Minister in

December 2007 who met with a rather severe grilling from then opposition

members, some of whom had previously been government ministers.

The political relationship with the UK government is never far out of sight either.

Although the policy and programs of the Scottish Executive are devolved, the

finance is allocated through the ‘block grant’ from the UK Parliament. This means

that the UK Parliament at Westminster is also an institutional stakeholder in this

process as the Comprehensive Spending Review, which allocates the Scottish

‘block grant’ allocation. The CSR process impacts on the Scottish budget process

and on the party political dynamics between the Scottish Government and

Scottish Parliament, increasingly since the Scottish National Party formed a

minority government in 2007.

The positioning of EPBPAG by Ministers and officials in evidence to the Equal

Opportunities Committee bears closer analysis. Over the years the existence and

activities of this group has been held up as proof of the government’s

commitment. However, successive ministerial statements have suggested an

element of distancing and laying responsibility for decisions and progress with the

advisory group and not with Executive Ministers or officials (see for instance

Making Progress, Scottish Executive 2003; Official Report, Meeting 5, 2003;

Meeting 17, 2004; Meeting 15, 2005).

External stakeholders have clearly had a significant role in informing and

influencing the drive for equality in the Scottish Budget process. Oral and written

evidence has been consistently absorbed and utilized by Committee members

featuring to positive effect in members’ questioning of Executive ministers

thereby advancing key arguments for policy and conceptual change. Arguably

the engagement and promotion of equality analysis in the budget by a greater

number of agencies has been a positive outcome from the breadth of the

18

equalities definition. Non-gender specific organisations such as the Disability

Rights Commission (DRC), Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), and Equality

Network contributed to a wider debate and enhanced support for some of the

substantial arguments presented by SWBG.

Would SWBG have achieved this level of government interest and parliamentary

scrutiny on its own, or has the involvement of other agencies has been a positive

boon? This question does not detract from the central role that SWBG have had

in pressing, indeed setting, this agenda, but does allow for the view that there

may have been strength in numbers, with the involvement of other agencies

adding value to the process. That these agencies have now been reduced in

numbers may be a cause for concern. It will also require the SWBG to seek a

positive working relationship with the EHRC to secure budget analysis as part of

the commission’s workplan.

Most recently, the Committee undertook to appoint a special adviser for the

budget 2008-09. In selecting potential candidates the Committee demonstrated

its commitment by appointing an individual with specific expertise in GBA – and

also a member of the SWBG. This appointment is potentially a significant step in

building knowledge and confidence in this key committee, and in setting a course

for the Committee’s work and focus throughout the lifetime of this parliament and

the current budget. It was also the first time that all the subject committees of

the parliament appointed a special adviser at this stage in the budget process, a

process which the Committee recommended to the Finance Committee in its

Stage 1 Report in January 2008.

Overall, as this analysis has shown, the Equal Opportunities Committee of the

Parliament has been a significant and serious driver of equality analysis in the

budget process. Illustrative of its key role in changing the process and content of

public policy in Scotland is the range of inquiries which it initiated including the

2002-03 Inquiry into gender and Best Value; the 2003-04 Inquiry into

Mainstreaming in the Committees of the Scottish Parliament; and in the 2006-07

Equalities Review of progress on equalities since 1999.

Stability and Sustainability of the SWBG as an outsider group

For any outsider or lobby groups, relationships with individual parliamentarians

are crucial. It is a key vulnerability for SWBG to maintain such relationships

without falling victim to party-political wooing, especially in times of minority

government and disgruntled opposition. SWBG is further vulnerable given the

19

absence of financial resource to support the work of the Group. Reliance on

entirely voluntary contributions of time means that members are always under

pressure from other quarters, and so the priorities of SWBG are constantly

squeezed into limited time.

Maintaining the involvement and goodwill of external groups and “active

community” voices, has been highlighted in the literature on gender budget

initiatives as a key factor (Sharp, 2007, 2). However, privately over the years

SWBG members have continued to express frustration that their engagement

with the Scottish Executive and Scottish Government (Mackay et al 2005), feeling

at times that it amounts to little more than window-dressing and is used as a fig

leaf for government inaction and failing commitment. Current Scottish

Government Ministers have given their commitment both to the process of

equality proofing the budget and to working with SWBG10.

SWBG continues to engage with the Equality Unit, and EPBPAG. From tracking

formal minutes, and the lack of activity in 2007, it would appear that this group

has lost direction in recent years, both in terms of its strategic orientation and

destination, as well as its management. Originally conceived as a ministerial

advisory group, no minister has ever attended its meetings nor is it clear how the

group advises ministers. These issues have been the subjects of recent

representations to Ministers by SWBG (Parliamentary event, 23 January 2008).

These tensions and frustrations raise significant questions for the vulnerability

and sustainability of the group in its current form, and also perhaps explain the

fairly constantly critical tone in SWBG responses. Mackay likened this to the

‘expectations-capabilities gap’11 (2005, 31). The observations of three years ago

that “persistence and repeatedly stating one’s case may be perceived by public

officials and politicians as indicative of a formidable lobby that ‘is not going to go

away’” (ibid) seem to still hold true.

Changing Institutional and Conceptual Frameworks for Equality

In October 2007, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) came into

existence. It brings together the previous statutory commissions on race, 10 Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, SWBG parliamentary event, 23 January 2008; Minister for Sport and Communities statement to Scottish Parliament, 15 May 2008. 11 As suggested by James Mitchell. See J. Mitchell ‘Expectations, policy types and Devolution’ in A. Trench (ed) Has Devolution Made a Difference: The State of the Nationals 2004 Exeter: Imprint Academic 2004.

20

disability and sex equality, with the additional ‘strands’ of sexual orientation, age,

and faith and belief, alongside human rights. The narrative being developed by

the EHRC, and around which it will frame three-yearly ‘state of the nation report’,

is based on the Capabilities Approach, informed by work from the Centre for

Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) as part of the UK Government’s Equalities

Review in 2006-07 which adopted as a definition of equalities:

“An equal society protects and promotes equal, real freedom and

substantive opportunity to live in the ways people value and would choose,

so that everyone can flourish. An equal society recognises people’s

different needs, situations and goals and removes the barriers that limit

what people can do and can be.” (Fairness and Freedom, Final Report of

Equalities Review 2006, 16)

It is important to register these changes in conceptual thinking on equalities at

the level of the UK government as the implications could potentially be significant

at the level of Scottish government given the EHRC operates in Scotland, and the

Scottish Government civil service continue to be part of the UK civil service. A

new statutory body has come into being, with an expanded remit on equalities,

within the wider context of human rights concepts and legislation. Positive duties

on public bodies to promote equality have been introduced, including the 2007

Gender Equality Duty. The UK Government is due to introduce a ‘single equality

bill’ following the findings of the Discrimination Law Review in 2007, and more

recent aborted attempts on legislation to unify equalities legislation in the UK.

These changes to the institutional arrangements and the conceptual framework of

equalities have considerable relevance for the pursuit of gender budget analysis

within the current approach to equalities mainstreaming in policy at the Scottish

and UK levels of government.

Furthermore there is a new government in Scotland with a different conceptual

approach to equalities. It perhaps remains to be seen the extent to which the

differences in approach are political, in terms of an SNP administration distancing

itself from its Labour precursor governments; and to what extent the differences

are substantive. Evidence from the first SNP Budget and the Government’s

Economic Strategy in 2007 has given groups like SWGB cause for concern. In the

Government’s Economic Strategy “equity” is one of five strategic priorities critical

to delivering the Government’s ‘Purpose’ of “creating a more successful country,

with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable

21

economic growth” (Scottish Government 2007, 8). Equity contributes to this

purpose in the following way:

“Delivering sustainable growth with opportunities for all is at the heart of

the Government’s Purpose. Our three “golden rules” of growth – solidarity,

cohesion and sustainability – reflect the intrinsic importance of social

equity, regional balance and respect for the environment among

Scotland’s diverse people. However, as well as being a desirable outcome

and characteristic of growth, addressing social, regional and inter-

generational equity is also a key driver of economic growth” (op.cit., 47).

A final dynamic with which SWBG, and gender policy advocates more widely,

continue to struggle is the wider question of the equalities narrative in conceptual

and language terms, as well as strategic direction. The definitions of equality in

the Scotland Act 1998, and in the Equality Strategy of 2000 currently still obtain.

They are not, however, reflected in the same way in the narrative offered by the

current government. The Equality Strategy is due to be reviewed during 2008.

This offers both an opportunity for re-affirming and strengthening commitments

to equality, and specifically to equality in the budget process; but also an

opportunity for re-forming equality definitions and narratives and repositioning

gender within the context of wider legislative and policy shifts in the UK as a

whole. These challenges form the final part of the paper in the following section.

Section Four: Favourable Conditions for GBA in Scotland: current

assessment

This final section revisits the favourable conditions set out at the start, and

considers the extent to which they still exist given the challenges subsequently

discussed.

After almost ten years of devolution there is undoubtedly a different climate for

equality. Within the limitations of the Scotland Act 19998 the Scottish Parliament

has enacted a range of equalities specific legislation, including for example, the

Civil Partnerships Act 2005. A range of public policy initiatives illustrate greater

awareness of equalities, even allowing for the earlier criticisms in this paper of

the framing of anti-poverty or social justice policy. Such legal and political

developments would have been considerably more difficult without the emphasis

22

on promoting equality, and the structures of the devolution settlement that this

paper has explored.

Although the overall climate may present a positive perspective, it would appear

there is little room for complacency, especially in the context of GBA. The

following table sets out the current state of the ‘favourable’ conditions for GBA

and the variance between 1999 and 2008.

Favourable Conditions 1999 2008 Situation in Scotland Political will √ -√ Limited in Scotland. No equalities

commitment in the SNP Scottish Election manifesto. UK Equalities Bill delayed.

Political change √ -√ New Scottish Government. UK Government weakened by leadership changes and poor electoral and poll returns.

Social change √ -√ Movements directed elsewhere, e.g. climate change. Reduction in profile, presence and funding of ‘women’s’ organisations.

External pressure √ -√ Public opinion shows limited interest and support in equalities issues, see Social Attitudes Survey 2008.

Pro-equality political climate √ -√ Limited. Shift to broader equalities agenda; growing human rights context.

Commitment to gender mainstreaming

√ --√ Opportunity to re-state in 2008 Equality Strategy

Stakeholders and players in place

√ -√ SWBG remains active, but vulnerable. Women’s organisations in Scotland include Engender and the Scottish Women’s Convention. Along with the equal pay campaign initiative ‘Close the Gap’ are all funded through the Scottish Government.

Policy context supportive √ -√ Scottish Government’s Economic Strategy dominates policy and contains no reference to equality, as ‘equity’ is a strategic priority, within the Scottish Government “golden rules”. The revision of the Equality Strategy in 2008, and recent ministerial statements are opportunities to revisit the agenda for equality in the budget process.

Commitment to external policy drivers

√ -√ Limited focus on social policy drivers.

Positive approach to governance

√ -√ No public consultation on budget in 2007. Current consultation on tackling poverty and inequality offers some opportunity for debate. SNP Government has introduced significant

23

changes to funding and service delivery relationships across Scottish voluntary sector and local authorities in the 2008-09 Budget.

Equality or ‘women’s’ “machinery” in place within the institutional arrangements

√ --√ Equality Unit remains, with increased staff and resources, but expanded equalities remit remains. Women MSPs have fallen to 33% from a peak in 2003 of 43%.

From the analysis in this paper, it can be said that SWBG continue to be “an

effective politically powerful lobby” (Mackay et al 2005, 31) in the promotion of

equality budget analysis in Scotland.

The current Scottish Government’s narrative on equality has already been noted

as a cause for concern for SWBG and other equality activists. Further to this the

introduction of new financial arrangements between local and central government

cemented in a political deal whereby local authorities have agreed to freeze

locally levied tax (Council Tax) at current rates. This has raised serious concerns

among equalities organisations at local and national level as services and workers

have come under threat of closure and redundancy as local budgets are revised.

Anxieties have been heightened by the introduction of a National Reporting

Framework, to be monitored through ‘Single Outcome Agreements’. The

references to and guidance on reporting or monitoring on equalities are weak as

are the references to the public sector duties to promote equality. For SWBG in

continuing its efforts to promote GBA, there is a re-doubled strain on their scant

resources as while the Scottish Government expresses its commitment to

equalities it appears non-directive in its position to local authorities:

“We are in the process or negotiating Single Outcome Agreements with

individual local authorities…until the agreements are negotiated and

published, it would be unreasonable for me to comment on them”

(Scottish Parliament Official Report 15 May col. 8612).

More positively the Scottish Government has stated that it recognises the need

for improvement in “Equality Impact Assessments” (EQIA) as required within the

public sector duties and has made a public commitment that “the individual

policies that the budget funds will indeed be equality impact assessed” (ibid).

Three years on from the analysis by Mackay et al, SWBG is facing some of the

same challenges, albeit in a changed political environment. The Equal

24

Opportunities Committee,however as this paper has shown, continues to be a key

target and potential ally for SWBG and the continuation of equality analysis in the

Scottish Budget.

Conclusion

There is a mixed story to tell of the progress to date in pursuing GBA in Scotland.

As this paper has highlighted there was an initially favourable climate, with

prevailing political conditions positively disposed to the initiation of a GBA

process, resulting in a number of early gains in securing commitments to GBA in

the newly developing policy process.

Section One considered this background in the context of favourable conditions

for the pursuit of GBA and Section Two introduced the Scottish Women’s Budget

Group. Section Three offered a detailed analysis of institutional engagement to

illustrate the extent and character of progress towards GBA in Scotland; and

Section Four an overview of a changing institutional, policy and legal landscape.

The context of a wider equalities agenda in Scotland has been shown to have

both a diluting effect on gender policy and awareness, but also a strengthening

effect on acceptance and action on the wider concept of equalities. It has been

argued elsewhere that this wider context of equalities has allowed gender to be

deliberately undervalued as the perception is that gender, and specifically women

“have been done” in policy and legislative treatments in recent years, (McKay and

Gillespie, 2006).

The SWBG have demonstrated considerable capacity and resilience as an

unfunded voluntary group who have consistently engaged with government and

parliament at all levels. Their engagement with the Scottish Parliament

Committee process has perhaps yielded the greatest progress in terms of political

awareness of and commitment to equality analysis in the Scottish Budget

process. However, for both SWBG and successive Equal Opportunities

Committees – and to a lesser extent Finance Committees – the slow pace of

change within the Scottish Executive and the variable commitment of successive

Ministers appear to have been a significant block on progress.

After ten years of lobbying for change in the budget process there are

undoubtedly areas of progress and achievement. It has also been a process

25

characterised by steps forward followed by several more back. The contextual

narrative on equalities and changing political administrations has altered the

course and commitment to equalities; the understanding of and commitment to

mainstreaming generally, and specifically to equality analysis in the Scottish

Budget process.

It cannot be said that as a political project the efforts to introduce equality

analysis in the Scottish budget have failed as there are practical ongoing practices

within the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. Recent political

statements have committed the Scottish Government to equality in the budget

process. Where there are considerable weaknesses, as this paper has

demonstrated, is in turning awareness among officials and politicians and political

statements into sustained practical realities across Scottish Government

departments and delegated authorities.

A future focus on the utility of the relatively new public sector duties to promote

equality, and the use of EQIAs will be the direction for the EHRC and SWBG in

their different roles. The extent to which these measures are woven into the

EHRC measurement framework and integrated into the core capabilities is still to

emerge. Adaptation of the Capabilities Approach raises a number of challenges

for policy makers and campaigners; just as the concept of mainstreaming was

seen as a threat to equal opportunities policymaking ten years ago. SWBG and

progress towards equality proofing the Scottish Budget faces a number of

challenges including the instability of EPBPAG; working with known and new MSPs

(41 in the 2007 elections), and regular changes in supportive officials to press the

case; and encouraging politicians to stay the course. It is possible to draw the

conclusion that it remains with SWBG to be a strong force for change in the face

of a challenging policy environment.

26

References

Budlender, D. (2004), Expectations versus Realities in Gender-responsive Budget Initiatives, (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development)

Breitenbach, E. (2003), Women in Scotland Consultative Forum, (Briefing Note for Strategic Group on Women) Breitenbach, E. and Mackay, F. (2001), Women and Contemporary Scottish Politics (Edinburgh: Polygon) Jubeto, Y. (2007), ‘Experiencias europas en presupuestos con enfoque de genero: una revision critica’, Aequalitas 12, 6 – 24. Holvoet, N. (2007), ‘Gender Budgeting in Belgium: Findings from a Pilot Project’, European Societies 9:2, 275-300. Mackay, F. and Bilton, K. (2000), Learning from Experience: Lessons in Mainstreaming Equal Opportunities (Edinburgh: Governance of Scotland Forum) Mackay, F. et al. (2005), Access, voice … and influence? Women’s organisations in post-devolution Scotland, (Edinburgh: Engender, Gradus Case Study 2) McKay, A. and Gillespie, M. in Keating, M (ed.) (2006), Scottish Social Democracy: Progressive Ideas for Public Policy (Brussels: P.I.E Peter Lang) McKay, A. (2004), “Developing a Gender Budget Initiative: A Question of Process or Policy? Lessons Learned from the Scottish Experience”, Chapter prepared for Vol. 4 of University of Linz, Gender Studies Series. McKay, A. and Fitzgerald, R. (2002), Exploring the Role of Gender Impact Assessment in the Scottish Budgetary Process (Scottish Executive) O’Hagan, A. and Gillespie, M. (2008) “Papering over the Cracks? Social Justice and Gender Budgeting in Scotland” Paper to Nordic Baltic Council First International Conference on Gender Budgeting and Social Justice, Vilnius 10-11 January 2008 O’Hagan, A. (2001) Unpublished M.Sc. thesis “Gender Mainstreaming: An idea whose time has come”, University of Strathclyde Sharp, R. and Broomhill, R. (2002) “Budgeting For Equality: The Australian Experience”. Feminist Economics 8:1, 25–47 Scottish Women’s Budget Group SWBG (2001), as Engender Women’s Budget Group, Spending Plans For Scotland For 2000-01 And 2001-02. A Response To The Annual Expenditure Report Of The Scottish Executive ‘Investing In You’ SWBG (2002), Accounting For Gender, A Response to: The Scottish Budget 2003-4: Annual Expenditure Report Of The Scottish Executive

27

SWBG (2002), Scottish Women’s Budget Group Response To The Scottish Executive Consultation: Building A Better Scotland: Spending Proposals 2003-6: What the money buys

SWBG (2003), Scottish Women’s Budget Group – Review of the Scottish Executive’s progress towards producing a gender proofed budget SWBG (2004), Response To The Scottish Executive: Annual Evaluation Report 2005-06 SWBG (2005), Measuring Up: Delivering on Gender Equality in the Scottish Budget. Comment on the Draft Budget Document 2006-07 Web References Scottish Executive 1998 Social Exclusion in Scotland: A Consultation Paper 1999-2003 Social Justice … A Scotland Where Everyone Matters – Series Milestones, Indicator and Annual Reports 2000-2008 Scottish Budget Annual Documentation including Annual Expenditure Reports, Annual Evaluation Reports; Spending Plans; Draft Budgets; Scottish Budget Summary and Detail documents 2000 Towards an Equality Strategy Consultation on the Development of a strategy: Equality Strategy: Working Together for Equality 2001 Preliminary Report on Equality Strategy 2002 Making Progress: Equality Annual Report

(a) Building a Better Scotland, Spending Proposals 2003-2006: What the money buys

(b) Closing the Opportunity Gap: Scottish Budget for 2003-2006

2003 Equality Proofing Budget Expert Seminar, 2001 Published on website 2003 2006 “Gender Impact Analysis and the Scottish Budget Sport and Health Pilots” Fitzgerald, R. with Dr Ailsa McKay and Kay Simpson

Closing the Opportunity Gap: A Scoping Study Nicola Smith and Natalie Branosky Centre for Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion John H. McKendrick and Gill Scott Scottish Poverty Information Unit

28

Scottish Government 2007 “Draft Budget and Spending Plans 2008-2009” “Government Economic Strategy” 2008 “Taking Forward the Government Economic Strategy: A Discussion Paper on Tackling Poverty, Inequality and Deprivation in Scotland” Scottish Parliament 2002 Scottish Parliament Briefing “The Annual Budget Process”. Subject Map Devolved Area Series 00/07 (Revised) 9 April Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee Reports 2002 Stage 1 Report to The Finance Committee on the 2003/04 Budget Process, 15 May <http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/reports-02/eor02-budgetprocess-01.htm Stage 2 Report to The Finance Committee on the 2003/04 Budget Process, 30 October <http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/reports-02/eor02-budgetprocess-02.htm Literature Review of Research on Gender Equality in Scotland, 19 November <http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/reports-02/eor02-07-01.htm 2003 Equal Opportunities Committee Legacy Paper , 7 March Stage 2 Report to the Finance Committee on the 2004/05 Budget Process, 5 November > <http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/reports-03/eor03-budget-01.htm 2004 Budget Process 2005-06 Executive response, 11 November <http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/reports-04/eor04-BudgetResponse-01.htm 2006 Budget Process 2007-2008 – Submissions received, 29 November <http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/documents/Budgetsubmissions.pdf 2007 Equalities in Scotland Review of Progress, 23 March <http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/reports-07/eor07-03.htm Legacy Paper, 27 March <http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/reports-07/eor07-05.htm 2008 Budget Process 2008-09 – Submissions received, 7January http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/equal/documents/BudgetProcess2008-09-SubmissionsReceived.pdf Report to the Finance Committee, 16 January

29

<http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/finance/reports-08/fir08-01-vol2-02.htm#ANXF Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report Session One 2000 Meeting 10 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-00/eo00-1001.htm Meeting 12 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-00/eo00-1201.htm Meeting 20 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-00/eo00-2001.htm 2001 Meeting 8 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-01/eo01-0801.htm Meeting 9 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-01/eo01-0901.htm Meeting 10, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-01/eo01-1002.htm#Col1224 2002 Meeting 3 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-02/eo02-0301.htm Meeting 5 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-02/eo02-0501.htm Meeting 8 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-02/eo02-0801.htm Meeting 9 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-02/eo02-0901.htm Meeting 15 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-02/eo02-1501.htm 2003 Session Two Meeting 3 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-03/eo03-0301.htm Meeting 4 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-03/eo03-0401a.htm Meeting 5 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-03/eo03-0501a.htm

30

Session One Meeting 4 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-03/eo03-0401.htm 2004 Meeting 4 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/or-04/eo04-0201.htm Meeting 6 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/or-04/eo04-0601.htm Meeting 7 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/or-04/eo04-0701.htm Meeting 9, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/or-04/eo04-0901.htm Meeting 17 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/or-04/eo04-1701.htm 2005 Meeting 13 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/or-05/eo05-1301.htm Meeting 15 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/or-05/eo05-1501.htm 2006 Meeting 18, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/or-06/eo06-1801.htm Meeting 19 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/equal/or-06/eo06-1901.htm 2007 Session Three Meeting 3 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/equal/or-07/eo07-0301.htm Meeting 5 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/equal/or-07/eo07-0501.htm Meeting 6 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/equal/or-07/eo07-0601.htm Meeting 7 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/equal/or-07/eo07-0701.htm Meeting 8 <http:// www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/equal/or-08/eo08-0801.htm Scottish Parliament Official Report 2008, Meeting 15 May Statement on “Delivering Equality and Diversity through the Scottish Budget” from Stewart Maxwell, Minister for Sport and Communities http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-08/sor0515-01.htm

31