Scottish Government

EQUALITY PROOFING BUDGET EXPERT SEMINAR

Victoria Quay Edinburgh 12/13 October 2001

Introduction and Background

Equality Proofing the Budget is an essential component of the Scottish Executive's work on mainstreaming equality. Ensuring that equality considerations are taken into account in developing policies is essential ground work for equality proofing the budget. This work is being taken forward in parallel and as mainstreaming develops, we will expect to see this reflected in the budget process.

The extent to which equality considerations are made in the decisions about Scottish Executive spend is an important part of the process. So the Scottish Executive undertook in the summer of 2000 to look seriously a how it could "equality proof the budget".

It undertook this work following meetings with Scottish Women's Budget Group. A feature of the work to date is that it has been a collaborative process between the Scottish Executive's Finance Department and Equality Unit and external interests and experts. International experience indicates that this is the most effective way to proceed. The Equality Proofing Budget Advisory Group was established in October 2000 to advise the Scottish Executive on mainstreaming equality into the budget process.

This expert seminar being hosted jointly here today by Equality Unit and Scottish Women's Budget Group comprises of renowned experts in the field, external interests, Executive policy makers and Finance officials and representatives from the Scottish Parliament. It is hope that the input and sharing of experiences will be helpful in steering the work of the Equality Proofing Budget Advisory Group.

SESSION 1: INTRODUCTION (Friday, 1.15pm)

Chaired by Dr. Peter Collings, Scottish Executive Finance Department

I particularly welcome having a range of people here this afternoon who can help us look at equality in the context of the Scottish Budget. We have established connections with many groups already, though within the Executive we are concentrating at present on gender issues. It's the starting point because we have most data about gender, particularly in relation to the recipients of benefits and services.

I am extremely grateful for your attendance today. I am sure we shall learn a lot that we actually apply in the Scottish Executive. I now hand over to Yvonne Strachan to give a general introduction to what we are doing.

1.2 BUDGETS AND THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE EQUALITY STRATEGY

Yvonne Strachan, Scottish Executive Equality Unit

One of the implications of devolution and the commitment of Parliament and Ministers to equal opportunities, as one of the founding principles of the Parliament, was to think how they could make a difference to the lives of the people in Scotland. There were considerable discussions and consultations prior to the establishment of Parliament as to how this could be taken forward, and agreement was reached that the Executive would follow the mainstreaming approach to equality. This is to say government and the Executive, in its policy making, service delivery, preparation for legislation and spending plans, should incorporate an equality perspective in all the work that it is doing. This approach was outlined in the Scottish Executive's Equality Strategy ( Equality Strategy: Working together for equality, Scottish Executive, November 2000).

In this particular area of spending, two issues emerged. Firstly, there was a strong level of external discussion underway as to how gender impact assessment might be done on budgets, drawing on work at the UK level by the Women's Budget Group. Secondly, in the context of devolution, we had to think how this could be translated into the Scottish context. So Engender and EOC organised a Seminar in late 1999 to explore this with a number of bodies. As a result, the Engender Women's Budget Group was established in Scotland, which raised the issue with the Scottish Executive as to how this might be carried forward.

Our work on budgets has to be an integral part of the work we are doing in mainstreaming equality into policy. Secondly, we wish to work and continue working in partnership and, thirdly, our approach on all our equality work must cover a broad range of equality interests: gender, race, disability, age, religion, sexual orientation.

We therefore established the Equality Proofing Budgets Advisory Group in November 2000, comprising Engender Women's Budget Group, the EOC, DRC, CRE, Equality Network, and also involving the Scottish Executive Finance Department and Equality Unit, to advise the Minister as to how we can take the work forward. That group has been meeting and working up a programme of activities in the area. Through the group, we have commissioned research to map the budget process, identify the areas where intervention may be possible and look at what information we may need to help develop the guidelines and guidance for our finance teams and policy makers. We have also had international contact, for example, with the Canadian government, to discuss this important area. Drawing on these initial contacts, officials have been to Canada and discussed the issue of equality proofing budgets with Status of Women Canada.

Finally, we hope that today's seminar will stimulate suggestions and ideas to give us some further steer as to the kind of things that we need to be addressing in the Executive in taking this forward in collaboration with our partners.

1.3 MAINSTREAMING EQUALITY

Rona Fitzgerald, University of Strathclyde

'Mainstreaming' is a strategy than aims to make equality considerations a regular part of the mainstream policy process. Mainstreaming is about building in equality rather than building it on to existing policies and programmes. For example, it's about asking questions of access before making a policy intervention and before new legislation is formulated.

Evolution of mainstreaming

1970s Characterised as 'equal treatment'. This era focused on how to ensure that men and women were treated as equals before the law and in respect of policy-making.

1980s Characterised by a shift to more positive action. Structural inequalities were recognised, with the implication that women need tailored intervention to build capacity and support/encourage involvement in the labour marker and in entrepreneurial activities.

1990's Characterised by a shift to mainstreaming. Much of the early work on mainstreaming was done at UN level. In the European Union, there was a move to gender mainstreaming from the mid-1990s in the European Regional policy that was delivered through the structural funds. It is important to note that this represented a shift away from the notion that it was about human resource issues and equal opportunities in recruitment, and that it is more about the policy process.

For example, the Scottish Executive's Equality Strategy defines mainstreaming as "making sure that an equality perspective is part of the everyday work of government". It identifies a number of actions and outcomes, including mechanisms for equality impact assessment of budgets and spending plans. It is an over-arching document for the Scottish Executive and should permeate all of the policy frameworks, thus resulting in policy coherence.

Mainstreaming is a strategy underpinned by a number of tools. Indeed, the strategy will only be successful if it is well understood, accepted politically and systematically supported and implemented.

The first stage of mainstreaming requires raising awareness so that an equality perspective is explicitly incorporated into policy and into the development of tools. Of these tools, data are a crucial underpinning of mainstreaming to understand the barriers based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, race and age.

The second stage is at the level of action. One crucial task is to develop an understanding of the ability to apply equality impact assessments within the policy process. Another crucial task is to set targets and to develop indicators of these targets that represent progress within the Scottish policy context. One of the lessons of the European structural funds, particularly in the 1997-9 period, is that targets should be both modest and reachable. This links to the development of monitoring and evaluation frameworks.

Finally, training and capacity building. If we are asking people to change work practices, it is important that we tell people what those changes are and give them a sense of direction so that clear demands are being made in a new policy environment.

It is important to look at what has already been done, one year into the implementation of the Scottish Executive Equality Strategy: to review the goals and targets; to ask what has been accomplished and what has been missed; to get a sense that this is something that you are building in rather than building on. And because of this, because you are going to build in new work practices throughout the policy making environment, it is going to take time.

1.4. DISCUSSION

The following points were raised in discussion:

• We have to be very careful that we do not create inequality by setting up interventions that do not allow equality of access. These are often the unintended consequences of policy interventions.

• The essence of mainstreaming is that you bring in an understanding of diversity so that the overall policy can accommodate it. This understanding may sometimes, but not always, require positive action.

• There was a question as to the linearity of the 3 stage process of mainstreaming presented by Rona Fitzgerald. The question was also raised as to whether the process may be fast-tracked in some policy areas so that it can be seen exemplified. It was agreed that these stages are often developing in parallel. To move it forward, the Scottish Executive has developed two pilot areas, Housing and Education, where it is trying to concentrate more activity around mainstreaming.

• There was some concern that enterprise agencies often fail to consider some of these issues. They are not interested in gender, some are unwilling to keep gender disaggregated data and many want a quick turnover.

• Within the EU structural funds, some of those distributing funds were very disappointed that they had not reached a 50-50 target participation.

• The Executive has set social justice targets, which every social inclusion partnership must address. They do not, however, appear to have a gender/equality perspective. Nor do many of the baseline studies underpinning social inclusion partnerships recognise gender inequalities.

2

SESSION 2: PRESENTATIONS (Friday, 3pm)

Chaired by Yvonne Strachan, Scottish Executive Equality Unit

2.1 THE CASE FOR GENDER ANALYSIS OF BUDGETS

Sue Himmelweit, Open University and the UK Women's Budget Group

Why look at the gender impact of economic policy? Three arguments can be made. It is firstly necessary to know which policies reduce or increase inequalities. Secondly, knowing the impact of policy on different groups is likely to make policy more effective. Thirdly, underlying connections and contradictions between policies may be uncovered.

Equity arguments

This may be undertaken to assess the policy's impact on equality/inequality, to provide the opportunity to choose policies that have desirable effects on gender inequalities or to guide policymakers towards implementing other policies that may counteract any deleterious effects of a chosen policy.

Efficiency arguments

If the effects of policies on men and women are different, then policies may not achieve their objectives - or they may do so but in wasteful ways. Gender analysis, on the other hand, recognises that there are constraints on policy effectiveness. These often involve second-order behavioural effects, whereby men and women react differently to policy.

The specific basis of gender inequality

Gender analysis is not a cheap or easy thing to do. Its justification lies in the assumption that men and women are systematically different: that they face different constraints; that they assume different socially determined responsibilities; and that they are consequently likely to respond differently to policy.

Gender differences and the two economies

The following gender differences may be observed:

• In distribution of their time across the two economies. Men are largely in the paid economy while women stretch their time between the two.

• Women do more caring work than men. Caring responsibilities largely arise out of membership in households and many women share their households with persons less prone to take on caring responsibilities!

• Households allocate resources according to power relationships within them. Men have more power than women and therefore have more influence as to how household resources are used.

Gender impact of economic policy: Dimensions of analysis

The gender impact of economic policy may be examined along a number of dimensions. Though the list below was constructed to examine the gender impact of taxation and benefits, it may be modified for budgets. The following impact dimensions are suggested:

• On individuals

• On households

• On the distribution of power and resources within households

• On labour market incentives

• On the use of time (for example, will greater sharing of caring be promoted?)

• On prospects for the future (policies may have good immediate distributional effects, but do so by compromising people's futures).

2.2 GENDER BUDGET INITIATIVES: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Diane Elson, University of Essex and the UK Women's Budget Group

Context: Growth and diversity

Ten years ago, there was only one country in the world that had a gender budget initiative, and that was Australia. Now there are at least forty countries around the world that have begun some work, albeit at different stages. Details of some of these initiatives will be available very shortly in a publication by Debbie Budlender that the Commonwealth Secretariat will be producing (now available from the Commonwealth Secretariat under the title "Gender Budgets Make Cents"). I shall be drawing partly on that report and partly on my own experiences of visiting initiatives in India, South Africa and my work in the UK Women's Budget Group.

The next step forward was in the mid-1990s when the Commonwealth Secretariat initiated a project to look at gender equality in government budgets. Three pilots were undertaken: in Sri Lanka, Barbados and South Africa, in which work took place within and outside government, with Parliament playing an important role. This model, that brings together the legislature, the executive and community groups, has proved particularly successful in South Africa and elsewhere.

Based on the experience of South Africa, other countries in Africa became very interested. Of these, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda are probably most advanced though they face challenges not faced by South Africa and European countries. Most recently, the Basque Regional government launched an initiative and was interested to learn more about Scotland. Like Scotland, it does not have tax raising powers and it is constrained by national government policy. Some productive links with Scotland may be fostered here. At the national level in Europe, France produced an annex to its budget which looked at gender equality for the first time last year. It is at a very preliminary stage, with each Department being asked to identify what it thought were the main equality issues in its area. At this first stage, each Department appeared to pull out the budget lines that were specifically targeted at women. The next stage, however, will be to go beyond this into all lines of the budget. The Nordic countries have also made a commitment that they will be embarking on a major project to examine their national budgets from a gender equality perspective, though I do not yet know any details as to how they are going to take this forward. In Sweden, gender proofing of budgets has been going on for some time, but at the municipal level.

In the UK, a policy dialogue is now underway between the Treasury and the UK Women's Budget Group, which brings together researchers, representatives from the Trade Union movement, and different non-governmental organisations. This has mainly been around taxation and benefits, though we have now been invited to have a dialogue around the impending Spending Review. Initiatives are also getting off the ground in Peru, Mexico and India.

So, in summary, many initiatives are now taking place, with each country going about it in different ways, both because political and economic contexts differ and because budgets are organised differently. Nevertheless, there are comparable concerns and impulses around the world.

Equality

Most governments around the world have made a commitment to gender equality in terms of policy and legislation, but there is often a gap between this and their patterns of spending. This gap means that equality policies cannot be implemented.

Efficiency

Another impetus for these initiatives has been around the issue of efficiency and growing concern about value for money. This has led to attempts to produce statements of policy objectives, indicators of these objectives and frameworks, that is, reforms to how budgets are being carried out to bring policy and budget outputs closer and in line with each other.

Citizenship and participation

The third impetus to these initiatives around gender equality of budgets has been the commitment to greater participation of all citizens, both in the planning of budgets and their scrutiny. The commitment to higher levels of participation has led to greater consultation, transparency, accountability and openness in all aspects of government, and this includes budgets.

Budgets, sectors and 'intersectionality'

Commitment to higher levels of participation has provided an opening for introducing gender equality into budgets. While it has been taken up in many countries, it has displayed itself in different forms. It is probably true to say that there has been greater interest in the expenditure side of budgets, rather than in revenue raising.

Data

In terms of the budget cycle, most have begun by looking back and collecting baseline data, as well as identifying objectives and gender sensitive indicators. One of the lessons of this experience has been not to allow perfection to be a stumbling block to moving forward.

Seeking complementarity

The importance of identifying complementarities, both between gender equality objectives and other equalities and between gender equality and objectives that many think have little relevance to gender equality, should also be highlighted.

Seizing opportunities

Lastly, opportunities may arise around budgets that are not primarily related to gender equality, such as changes in their organisation and in the way they are audited and evaluated.

2.3 DISCUSSION

The following points were raised in discussion:

• There was some discussion as to whether the policy and legislative process with regards to equality was now complete and whether it was implementation of policy that now remained to be done.

• One crucial aspect of mainstreaming equality into budgets was that it brought equality issues to the Treasury, which lies at the centre of power. There was some suggestion, however, that this was less so for Holyrood (and the Finance Department) than for Westminster.

• There was discussion around the precise role of the Finance Department in the mainstreaming process. It was suggested that areas of responsibility and tasks should first be clarified, because expectations would differ accordingly

• The question was asked as to where the opportunities for mainstreaming equality into budgetary processes lie. One area of opportunity suggested was with regards to the budget document itself.

• It was suggested that pressure could be applied to demonstrate a commitment to equality of allocation in the budget document. A second opportunity is the production of a budget paper that looks back at the impact of previous budgets and outlines expectations as to the impact of the current budget.

• Other opportunities suggested were consultations while policies are at the planning stage, and through parliamentary hearings.

• A question was raised as to how it was possible to make budget impact assessments at an early stage in the process and before data were collected. It was suggested that the potential for doing this at an early stage partially depends on whether the statement is to cover a large swathe of spending or to cover specific areas. It also depends on how finely honed are the disaggregated data of different programmes.

3

SESSION 3: PRESENTATIONS (Saturday, 10.30am)

Chaired by Fiona Forsyth, Engender Women's Budget Group

3.1 RESEARCHING THE SCOTTISH BUDGETARY PROCESS

Ailsa McKay, Glasgow Caledonian University and Engender Women's Budget Group

The research that I am going to talk about has been commissioned by the Scottish Executive and is being undertaken together with Rona Fitzgerald. This is our first report of the research and its findings.

The main objective of the research has been to find out what has happened to budget practices in the first full year of Scotland's post-devolution period. We took April 2000 as our point of departure, since it marked the publication of the Scottish Executive's Annual Expenditure Report, Investing In You. This represented the first full budget cycle. We identified three groups of key players: the Scottish Executive (civil service), committees and the Parliament, and these appeared to play different roles at different stages of the budgetary process.

While there are still annual budget cycles, the key determinant is the Spending Review. Indeed, this is one of our main conclusions and it means that we have been focusing on the budget at the wrong point, namely, at the Annual Expenditure Report. Indeed, we have concluded that though the publication of the Annual Expenditure Report is an important political statement and marks the start of the budget cycle, it is not a key document. By that stage, relevant stakeholders have already been consulted and there is therefore little scope left for change. Hence, this is not the point at which we should be engaging with the budget process.

The response from the committees, and particularly the Finance Committee, has been disappointing, and we wanted to examine why this was so. By the time that it comes to committee, moreover, there is little scope for change. In the Finance Minister's view, if we are going to conduct successful budgets, everyone must be a stake-holder. We have pulled out four main issues from the findings so far:

1. Control over the process and budgetary reform

2. The need to ensure transparency throughout the process.

3. The role of public consultation.

4. The crucial importance of the Spending Review in the process

3.2 ENGAGING WITH THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS: THE UK WOMEN'S BUDGET GROUP

Sue Himmelweit, The Open University and UK Women's Budget Group

I should preface my remarks and say that much of this is my own interpretation of events and that I do not speak for the UK Women's Budget Group.

Up until 1997, the main focus of the UK Women's Budget Group was the Budget, and an annual response was made to the Budget from the point of view of women and equality. What we did at that stage, therefore, was produce questions about the Budget.

It took some time to develop relationships with the Treasury. We did so initially through contacts with some women ministers and met with Treasury officials on the first pre-Budget report.

Subsequently, we held a seminar at the Treasury on gender auditing. We found out from this Seminar that the Treasury did do various audits at the policy formation stage and that they did consider the implications of policy, though they did not do it for gender. We were then taken up by the Women's National Commission who appeared to believe that we were key players and needed some help in getting our voices heard. This led to more frequent meetings with Ministers and officials, leading to the establishment of some guidelines for future meetings. Latterly, we have been asked to comment on the Comprehensive Spending Review and at a stage much earlier than ever before. This is an important change, although it is difficult to assess how early in the process we are being asked to comment.

So, let me review our successes and failures:

Influence We do not know how much influence we have had, though my suspicion is that it is more gradual and around general frameworks than specific.

Gender audit Budget reports are now more likely to come up with some statements about gender than previously.

Resourcing mainstreaming One of the areas where we have been unsuccessful is in persuading the Treasury to spend some of its own resources on gender mainstreaming.

Confidentiality and expertise Though the Treasury can draw upon us for gender expertise, there are limits on what the UK Woman's Budget Group can do because of the Treasury's need for confidentiality.

Approach There is a need to consider whether our approach is the best way of getting women's equality issues on to the table.

4

SESSION 4 PANEL DISCUSSION: HOW DOES IT WORK AND WHAT DOES IT ACHIEVE? (Saturday, 12.05pm)

Panellists: Diane Elson, Rona Fitzgerald, Sue Himmelweit and Ailsa McKay.

Chaired by Esther Breitenbach, Women and Equality Unit, Cabinet Office and aided by Rachel Edgar, Scottish Executive Equality Unit

• There was discussion as to where the location of expertise is best placed, within government or outwith it. There was some agreement that it is best placed in both locations. Since Finance is the main gatekeeper in terms of how money is spent, the need for expertise around equality impact analysis and mainstreaming equality within Finance is crucial. There is also a need to expand that knowledge and expertise into different departments. Because Education and Housing are being fast-tracked for equality mainstreaming in the Executive, for example, it is hoped that mainstreaming expertise is being developed in these departments. At the same time, the new policy environment and the renewed interest in consultation that has emerged since devolution requires expertise to be developed outwith government. It remains unclear, however, as to how this external expertise is to be resourced.

• While the Treasury was reported to require research, there were differences between it and the UK Women's Budget Group as to what this meant. The Treasury is often looking to the UK Women's Budget Group to provide quantitative data as to gender impact, which it is unable to supply. It wants numerical data without any theory. It does not want research that explores causal mechanisms, which in its view is not counted as research. Further discussion is required with the Treasury as to what constitutes research and what is appropriate research in this area.

• The kind of monitoring required of organisations with regards to mainstreaming equality issues is critical. There has to be a rule of conduct that does not need to be reinvented in every department and with every new initiative. The same issue is true for many aspects of mainstreaming, whether training, research or budgets. At the same time, there are key budgetary review processes that could easily incorporate gender proofing.

• A good measure of any government's commitment to equality is the resources it puts into the budget to promote equality. It is also important that the government provides information that allows an independent assessment of spending.

• It is important that budget information be presented together with gender equality impact analysis. Up until recently, budget documents were presented with a view to controlling and legitimating allocations. Only more recently have budget documents been seen as opportunities to relate the impact of the budget on people's lives. This is very difficult, of course, when multiple equalities are concerned.

• There was some concern that the extension of monitoring along gender terms could be a barrier to extending mainstreaming equality for other equality groups, where data were less accessible. Others felt that once gender was embedded into all of the monitoring statistics and the whole process, then there would be a better opportunity for examining what else needs to be done.

• Local non-governmental organisations and policy groups should be brought into the dialogue because of the expertise that lies therein. The dialogue should not be restricted to equality groups. Policy groups were often excluded with regard to issues related to mainstreaming equality. However, these policy groups have much expertise to offer on equality issues and should be contributing to policy development.

5

SESSION 5: WORKSHOPS & PLENARY FEEDBACK

(Saturday, 2pm)

Four questions were set prior to the workshops and given to each of the three workshop groups. In order to ensure that all questions were answered by at least one of the groups, the same questions were given to each of them, but in a different order. Key points raised at each of the workshops were later fed back to the plenary session. Both are reported here.

Qu. 1 What does Engender's Women's Budget Group think it has achieved so far, and what does it hope to achieve?

Qu. 2 What does Engender's Women's Budget Group want/expect government officials to do as a result of the meetings and discussions that are taking place?

Qu. 3 How do we prioritise which issues/policy areas to focus on?

Qu. 4 What is the potential for wider dissemination of the information and discussions between the Women's Budget Groups, the Treasury and the Scottish Executive to other government departments, to the research community and to women's organisations?

5.1 WORKSHOP GROUP 1

Participants

Esther Breitenbach Women's and Equality Unit, Cabinet Office

Jackie Brierton PROWESS (Promoting Women's Enterprise Support)

Rachel Edgar (facilitator) Scottish Executive Equality Unit

Sue Fogden Caledonian University, Economics and Enterprise

Sue Himmelweit Open University

Helen Kay Children in Scotland

Camilla Kidner SPICe (Scottish Parliament Information Centre)

Helen Mansbridge Scottish Executive Finance

Marlene MacMillan Engender

Judith Robertson (reporter) OXFAM and Engender Women's Budget Group

Qu. 4 What is the potential for wider dissemination of the information and discussions between the Women's Budget Groups, the Treasury and the Scottish Executive to other government departments, to the research community and to women's organisations?

• There is a general requirement for greater public awareness.

• There is need for training across the Scottish Executive to promote understanding of issues around mainstreaming equality.

• Different levels of information are required for different groups of people. Politicians and parliamentary committees must be included since they are driving the process. Civil servants must also be included.

• Civil servants are inundated with guidance and other information. Information has to be disseminated both internally and to the public in a concise and digestible form.

• Irish website provided some good illustrative examples of mainstreaming in a form that can easily be engaged with, for example, transport policy before and after gender proofing.

• There are organisations that have useful experience of mainstreaming, and these experiences have been written up. One case in point is NOVA, a Dutch non-governmental organisation, that successfully underwent internal mainstreaming.

5.2 WORKSHOP GROUP 2

Participants

Fiona Forsyth Engender Women's Budget Group

Morag Gillespie Engender

Irene Graham (reporter) Glasgow Council of Voluntary Services and

Engender Women's Budget Group

Ailsa McKay (facilitator) Caledonian University, Economics and Enterprise and Engender Women's Budget Group

Fiona McLauchlan (note-taker) Scottish Executive Equality Unit

Angela O'Hagan EOC (Equal Opportunities Commission) and Engender Women's Budget Group

Zahid Rahman HM Treasury

Elaine Samuel (note-taker) Scottish Executive Equality Unit and U. of Edinburgh

Maggie Smith Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, N. Ireland

Qu. 1 What does Engender Women's Budget Group think it has achieved so far, and what does it hope to achieve?

• Progress since the first meeting of Engender Women's Budget Group with the Scottish Executive was been excellent. This event, which is a jointly organised by the Equality Unit and Engender, and includes the presence of the Finance Department, demonstrates the Executive's acceptance and acknowledgement of these issues, as well as their willingness to address them.

Qu. 3 How do we prioritise which issues/policy areas to focus on?

• Unreal expectations are being placed upon Engender Women's Budget Group by outside parties in relation to the many consultations exercises they are asked to respond to.

• Difficulty in determining which consultations Engender should focus on.

• Requirement for Engender to be more strategic in its approach to consultations.

• There needs to be concrete evidence as to the positive effects of the equality impact assessments.

• Suggestion that Engender is delivering the work which should be carried out by Government officials.

• Groups should not be undermined because they are running around trying to meet the demands of the Scottish Executive.

• Despite the volume of consultation exercises, anyone who has a view should have the opportunity to respond.

• Groups should prioritise consultations and should not feel they have to respond to every exercise.

• Groups should submit joint views on a particular consultation, especially if they have similar views and have joint support.

• Equality impact assessments should continue but focus on specific areas.

• Positive effects of equality impact assessments make it easier for Treasury to seek colleagues' co-operation in taking into account equality issues when deciding budgets.

• Consultation documents should focus on key issues only.

• The Executive should present consultations in a particular way so that groups do not have to undertake ground work for which they do not have the resources.

• Consultations should be appropriate, and responsibility should be on policy units to consider which groups are appropriate for consultation.

Qu. 2 What does Engender Women's Budget Group want/expect government officials to do as a result of the meetings and discussions that are taking place?

• Advisor on gender issues should be seconded to the Scottish Executive's Finance Department.

• Dissemination of the report of the seminar should be circulated as widely as possible, including on the Web. Key points should be contained within glossy one page summary and endorsed by the Minister.

• Engender Women's Budget Group should be recognised as relevant stakeholders.

• Engender Women's Budget Group should be involved in work at early stages in the policy process, for example, prior to putting out consultation papers rather than after.

• There is a training task ahead for the Equality Unit in raising awareness with those who have the responsibility for reviewing spending in each of the main divisions of the Scottish Executive (Heads of Divisions as well as ministers).

• Gender impact monitoring is essential. Equality and gender impact questions should be included in all consultation papers.

• Equality and gender impact should be included in all monitoring frameworks.

5.3 WORKSHOP GROUP 3

Participants

Lorna Ahlquist Engender Women's Budget Group

Morag Brown SPICe (Scottish Parliament Information Centre)

Amanda Callaghan (note-taker) Scottish Executive Equality Unit

Diane Elson University of Essex

Karen Furey (note-taker) Scottish Executive Equality Unit

Emebet Kebede Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association

Kath McKenna Scottish Executive Finance Co-ordination (Central?)

Sue Robertson Engender and One Parent Families Scotland

Gill Scott (facilitator and reporter) Glasgow Caledonian University, Social Sciences and Engender Women's Budget Group

Qu. 1 What does Engender Women's Budget Group think it has achieved so far, and what does it hope to achieve?

• The Group's involvement in feeding into the Comprehensive Spending Review process marked significant progress.

• Engender Women's Budget Group hopes to raise awareness in other groups and draw them into the process.

• The Group needs more resources to do this work.

Qu. 2 What does Engender Women's Budget Group want/expect government officials to do as a result of the meetings and discussions that are taking place?

Annual Expenditure Reports

• This should include a section on gender, with each department asked to comment on gender impact in its own area.

• Indicators are needed to make the measurement of policy impact easier.

• Percentages should be included to facilitate monitoring and review priorities.

• Reports should be presented more comprehensively.

Qu. 3 How do we prioritise which issues/policy areas to focus on?

• Other groups should be asked to take on specific issues.

• Engender Women's Budget Group should fill gaps, even though extra resources are required.

• There is a need to agree who does what research.

Qu. 4 What is the potential for wider dissemination of the information and discussions between Engender Women's Budget Group, the Treasury and Scottish Executive to other government departments, to the research community and to women's organisations?

• This seminar is a good example of disseminating information, getting key players together, sharing best practice and discussing important issues.

• Introduce gender equality into all consultation exercises and monitoring forms.

• Equality statement by Ministers in all relevant document reports.

• However, it is acknowledged that there are limits to the actions that the Scottish Executive can take in reserved areas.

5.4 PLENARY FEEDBACK (Saturday, 3PM)

Chaired by Angela O'Hagan, Senior Policy Officer, Equal Opportunities Commission and Engender Women's Budget Group

WORKSHOP GROUP 1

Reporter: Judith Robertson, OXFAM and Engender Women's Budget Group

Qu. 2 What does Engender Women's Budget Group want/expect government officials to do as a result of the meetings and discussions that are taking place?

• Mainstreaming must be embedded within the institutional processes of the Scottish Executive in order to make it sustainable. Ad hoc initiatives cannot promote sustainable equality mainstreaming.

• Sustainability will be achieved by taking an incremental approach. This must include training and setting achievable objectives and goals.

Qu. 4 What is the potential for wider dissemination of the information and discussions between the Engender Women's Budget Group, the Treasury and Scottish Executive to other government departments, to the research community and to women's organisations?

There were two main thrusts to the discussion

1. Levels of Information

• There was considerable discussion around the different levels of information required for different outcomes and different people.

1. Raising awareness around equality issues and budgets.

• Problems of disseminating research amongst civil servants were raised.

• Who should be raising awareness? The question was also raised as to whose responsibility it is to extract information, make it digestible and disseminate it.

WORKSHOP GROUP 2

Reporter: Irene Graham, Glasgow Council of Voluntary Services and Engender Women's Budget Group

Qu. 1 What does Engender Women's Budget Group think it has achieved so far, and what does it hope to achieve?

• Engender Women's Budget Group believes that great strides had been made since its very first meetings with the Scottish Executive Equality Unit and Finance Department.

• This Seminar, with the presence of Finance Department, as well as our meetings with two Finance Ministers in the Scottish Executive, demonstrates the willingness on the part of the Scottish Executive to acknowledge the issues, to accept their role in addressing them, and to work towards change.

Qu. 2 What does Engender Women's Budget Group want/expect government officials to do as a result of the meetings and discussions that are taking place?

• Would like to see any recommendations arising from this seminar being acted upon.

• Would like officials to recognise Engender Women's Budget Group as relevant stakeholders, involving it in work at early stages in the consultation process and before documents are printed, before Annual Expenditure Reports are produced and before Comprehensive Spending Review documents are published.

• There is a role for the Equality Unit in raising awareness, and it is important that this is approached strategically. It is therefore recommended that Heads of Divisions are targeted (and possibly the Minister) since they have the task of reviewing spending.

• There is a role for the Finance Department in linking policy to the equality agenda.

• The group acknowledged that it was often difficult to implement change in large organisations. It therefore recommended that the Scottish Executive might be helped by holding problem solving discussions with Engender Women's Budget Group.

• The appointment of an e xternal adviser to the Scottish Executive was suggested. Engender Women's Budget Group previously suggested this and there was some merit in examining this recommendation more closely.

• The Scottish Executive is now producing many documents and consultations. A gender and equality perspective must be introduced into all of them.

Qu. 3 How do we prioritise which issues/policy areas to focus on?

• Need to develop an expertise and specialisation in Engender Women's Budget Group and the voluntary sector since no government department can expect any one organisation to answer comprehensively.

Qu. 4 What is the potential for wider dissemination of the information and discussions between the Engender Women's Budget Group, the Treasury and Scottish Executive to other government departments, to the research community and to women's organisations?

• For internal dissemination, there is a need for short, summary, key points to Division Heads. These could be endorsed by Ministers. Otherwise, detailed documents often remain unopened.

WORKSHOP GROUP 3

Reporter: Gill Scott, Caledonian University, Social Sciences and Engender Women's Budget Group

Qu. 1 What does Engender Women's Budget Group think it has achieved so far, and what does it hope to achieve?

• Gender proofing budgets has now been recognised as a tool in mainstreaming.

Qu. 2 What does Engender Women's Budget Group want/expect government officials to do as a result of the meetings and discussions that are taking place?

• Mainstreaming must be developed so as to be sustainable.

Qu. 3 How do we prioritise which issues/policy areas to focus on?

• By identifying large spending areas, such as health, education and housing.

• By looking internally within the Scottish Executive, for example, at pay.

• By examining special issues, such as childcare, since it falls between departments and is therefore difficult to build into spending reviews.

Qu. 4 What is the potential for wider dissemination of the information and discussions between the Engender Women's Budget Group, the Treasury and Scottish Executive to other government departments, to the research community and to women's organisations?

• Engender Women's Budget Group has particular advantages in disseminating this information since it draws on women 'on the ground', academics and the Scottish Executive.

5.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS: Angela O'Hagan EOC and Engender Women's Budget Group

This seminar has been a very positive event, marked by a lot of learning over the past two days in a most collaborative and supportive way.

We have discussed resourcing, both for officials and external groups, the time factors involved, the legitimacy of conducting gender and equality mainstreaming analyses, the tensions involved in trying to promote gender mainstreaming analyses both within the Executive, in our own groups and in the wider community. Over the course of this Seminar, we have also been given very useful pointers by officials and other colleagues as to how to organise ourselves and promote ourselves strategically so that our interventions have maximum effect. Lastly, as a woman's group, we have been given very positive reinforcement as to the legitimacy of our intervention and the intervention of other women's groups in this process.

One key message to take from this Seminar, and one for which we must thank all contributors to the Seminar, is that gender proofing budgets is but one tool or mechanism by which gender equality is effectively mainstreamed into the policy process.

On behalf of the Engender Women's Budget Group, therefore, I should like to thank Ailsa McKay for suggesting the Seminar, Rachel Edgar for organising it, Diane Elson, Rona Fitzgerald, Sue Himmelweit and Ailsa McKay for their stimulating and grounded contributions to the event, Maggie Smith and Zahid Rahman for their representation of Stormont and Westminster in Edinburgh, and to all of you for the contributions that you have made over the past two days. We have been given over the past two days a clear exposition of gender budgeting as a means of delivering effective mainstreaming. Until the next time, thank you very much!