SWBG blog

Whose priorities are considered when local governments allocate budgets?

One of the first things we discuss with the Economic Empowerment Group is that budgets reflect a government’s priorities. It was therefore interesting to hear those introducing local government budgets articulate this so clearly. Phrases such as “this budget sets out what matters to the people” and “our priorities are shared priorities with the people of...” were frequently used.  

For the group, this raised the question of how politicians determine the priorities of their communities. Of the two local authorities examined, only one had carried out a pre-budget consultation; however, at the time the budget was set, the full analysis of responses was not publicly available, and it was unclear how these responses had informed decision-making.  In this local authority, gap identified was the lack of consideration given to health and social care. This was despite the Health and Social Care Partnership projecting a requirement to make £14 million in savings this year.  At the same time, additional recurring investment was allocated to community galas and events, despite previous proposals to cut this funding completely as part of budget consultations over the past two years.  

For group members from this local authority, it really made them question whose priorities are reflected in these decisions.  It also highlighted the lack of integration of budgets between the council and the Health and Social Care Partnership, leaving the most vulnerable at the sharp end of decision-making. 

The other authority had not undertaken any pre-budget consultation. In this area, additional investment was agreed for pavements in cemeteries. Given the poor condition of pavements more generally, which had recently resulted in a near miss for a group member, this raised questions about why cemeteries were prioritised and how this had been identified as mattering to people. 

Looking at the information made available after the budget-setting process, one council had no information on its website, while the other had a news release that focused on the areas it had chosen to invest in, but made no reference to the savings being made.  Most news coverage of the budget focused on Council Tax increases, making it difficult for the public to understand the full range of decisions taken or to assess whether these reflect their own priorities.  

The principles underpinning gender budgeting encourage greater transparency and participation in the budget-setting process. Members of our Women’s Economic Empowerment group felt that, in their local authority, there was a need for greater transparency around whose voices are being listened to and how this is being reflected in decision-making. 

Find out more: 

How good was this year’s Strategic Integrated Impact Assessment? The Women’s Economic Empowerment Group share their views

At the latest meeting of our Women’s Economic Empowerment Project, we explored how the Scottish Government considered equalities within its budget-setting process, particularly in relation to its duties under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).  

Using the key gender budgeting principles of transparency, participation, an outcome-focused approach, and advancing equality, we reviewed all budget documentation produced by the Scottish Government.  

The Scottish Government began producing equality information relating to the budget in 2009. Since then, they have further developed this process, publishing this information in different formats. This year, the Government amended their approach with the publication of a Strategic Integrated Impact Assessment (SIIA), which brings together assessments on: 

• Equalities; 

• Fairer Scotland; 

• Children’s Rights; 

• Consumer Rights; 

• Island impacts. 

Producing this work involved a three-phased evidence-gathering process, as well as undertaking a budget tagging exercise and a trial of an intersectional analysis. 

The SIIA explicitly stated that budgets “are more than just fiscal documents or events; they involve choices about how resources are raised and spent and, as such, reflect Government priorities and values.” However, the group felt that, while the SIIA tried to highlight how major budget lines aimed to support the achievement of the Government’s priorities, it was not clear from the published information what impact these different lines had on the priorities, or how the information had been used to inform budget decisions. 

Additionally, the SIIA highlighted that the choices made “involve trade-offs which might result in real-terms reductions or constrained growth in resource funding for some portfolio spend which low-income and disadvantaged households rely upon. It also means that we will need to scale back, or not proceed with, some capital projects to ensure we continue to live within our means.” However, based on the information provided, the group was not able to understand what these trade-offs were, how the Government had used equalities and outcome data to inform revenue allocations, or how these allocations would support the Government in meeting its duties under the PSED. 

The SIIA also highlighted that, going forward, there is an expectation that the public sector workforce will reduce, but that any impact would be mitigated through automation and service redesign, thereby protecting frontline services. Based on the group’s experience engaging with public services, and having recently reviewed local authority and health and social care partnerships’ budget consultations, the group had little faith that this would be the outcome. They raised concerns that these changes could make it harder for people to access the support they need unless service redesign is carried out with the people who use services.  

The impact assessment and associated tables contained a few statements which, according to the group, illustrate the limited nature of the assessment undertaken. These included: 

• “The highest-spending portfolios of Health and Social Care, Local Government, Social Security, Justice, and Education all broadly benefit people across Scotland equally”; and 

• That programmes are delivered by NHS Boards and Local Authorities, and it is for them to complete impact assessments. 

The group particularly questioned the approach taken in one area: mental health spending, which was rated as exceptional in terms of its substantive impact on disabled people. The evidence section justified this rating on the basis that people with mental health issues can be classified as disabled under the Equality Act, and therefore spending in this area was deemed to have an exceptional impact on them. The group felt, however, that this approach gave little consideration to the actual outcomes that budget lines achieved for people with protected characteristics. 

Final points and recommendations 

Using the principles of gender budgeting, the group concluded that more consideration and emphasis should be given to the actual impact of spending on different groups. They felt that understanding this impact was a key way for the Government to build greater participation in the process of embedding equalities analysis. One member argued: “I’m not seeing much in the way of actually hearing people who are affected by the various funding streams to really show evidence – they seem to be making assumptions based on how they imagine it might affect the different groups. Very poor transparency here.” 

Finally, the group would like to see more detail regarding the trade-offs associated with different budget decisions, including the reasons why some areas receive funding (or greater funding) than others, and how this links back to advancing equality in Scotland. Their perspective was that this would support greater transparency.