SWBG blog
What does £7.6 million mean? Reflections on stage 1 and stage 2 of the 2026-27 Scottish Budget Bill
Our Economic Empowerment group met last week to consider Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Scottish Budget bill, the final legislative step in the Scottish Government’s annual budget process.
The Stage 1 debate highlighted that with a minority government there is a need to discuss and agree budget measures with other parties. Jamie Greene MSP’s speech clearly highlighted the concessions that the Liberal Democrats had managed to secure.
The group felt that the additional £20million agreed for social care was a good example of how this approach could improve budget outcomes for women. However, the group continues to remain sceptical about the difference this funding will make given the negative changes to service provision being made at local level.
The disconnect between the rhetoric used by the Government and people’s experiences at the local level has been a constant theme in the group’s discussions. Another example of this was the announcement by the Cabinet Secretary of an additional £7.6million to tackle waiting lists for neurodiversity assessments.
The group instinctively believed this would be a good thing, however they questioned what difference this funding will actually make because, while £7.6 million might sound like a lot of money – and in household terms it is – the lack of detail about how this will improve current waiting lists was seen as problematic. The group agreed that without this information it was difficult to fully welcome this funding, or to assess whether this is the best way to address the needs of families with members who are neurodivergent.
Finally, the group felt that by not spelling out the expected impact of money allocations, it is difficult to hold accountable those responsible for addressing waiting lists, including their organisations.
Stage 2 debate took place in the Finance and Public Administration Committee and involved the Cabinet Secretary moving amendments to the Budget Bill. During this phase, Liz Smith MSP highlighted to the Cabinet Secretary that the Committee still felt that the Government had provided too little information about the trade-offs they had made or about the reasons why the Government had decided to allocate money to some areas.
One of the amendments the Cabinet Secretary made at the Committee was the allocation of funding to freeze rail fares. The Economic Empowerment group were interested in why the Government had decided to fund this policy to tackle the high cost of living instead of the costs of bus travel, a mode of transport that members of the group use more regularly.
Given that only 8% of people travel regularly by train, this decision calls for further explanation of the Government’s analysis of who stands to benefit and how it supports the Government’s key priorities.
Conclusion
The questions the group raised about rhetoric versus impact, lack of transparency around money allocations and their expected impact, limited focus on outcomes and addressing inequality highlight the need for the Government to better implement gender budgeting approaches into their budget process.
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.
Does the Draft Scottish Budget Meet Women’s Needs? The Women’s Economic Empowerment Group Discuss
The women’s economic empowerment group met after the Cabinet Secretary presented her budget to Parliament last week. The discussion focused on whether they felt their needs and the needs of women reflected in the budget decisions taken.
The Cabinet Secretary mentioned care 15 times, tax 16 times, poverty 5 times and investment 23 times while disabled/disability and women weren’t mentioned at all. Despite this, it could be argued that a number of the announcements made could benefit both women and disabled people. This included increased funding for wraparound care, funding for colleges to support disabled people into employment, and the increase in Scottish Child Payment for Under1’s from 2027.
The overall feeling of the group was that, while the Cabinet Secretary had said some positive things about areas they cared about, they weren’t sure that the funding allocated would actually make a difference in their lives. For instance, women shared their experiences of having difficulties getting GP appointments and of having their health concerns taken seriously. They felt that the additional funding to primary care and, in particular, to the walk-in GP clinics could make a difference. However, they were unclear how long this would take and if they and their families would benefit from the decisions taken anytime soon. They also queried what funding would be available to address the health inequalities experienced by women, who despite the publication and delivery of the Women’s Health Plan in 2021 are experiencing longer waiting times to access gynaecological services.1
The group had questions about whether budget decisions recognised the interconnectedness of the systems that we interact with. They highlighted this in relation to the announcement of funding for the Summer of Sport and the offer of free-swimming lessons. They questioned whether this budget announcement took any cognisance of decisions made in recent years at the local authority level to close or reduce the opening hours of facilities, and how funding to local authorities in general would support the delivery of these services. They queried whether disabled children would benefit from these announcements, and if the funding would be enough to address the barriers they often experience.
They also questioned whether additional funding for employability support would support more parents into work without addressing the challenges posed by the current childcare offer, or how, without changes in employers’ willingness to employ and support disabled people, this funding would lead to more disabled people accessing good-quality employment.
After listening to the Cabinet Secretary’s announcement, the questions posed to her afterwards and her responses, the group’s reaction was: “You can tell we are in an election year.” However, despite being in an election year, there were things the group felt were missing from the budget statement. While they welcomed the introduction of the mansion tax and the taxing of private jets, they felt that further changes were needed to make the system more progressive overall. They were also concerned about social care. While it had been mentioned, they weren’t convinced that the Budget paid enough attention to the problems being experienced across Scotland or to the recommendations made by the local government committee in their pre-budget scrutiny.
Finally, there was a lack of optimism that these announcements would make a difference to them and their families due to the way these will be delivered at a local level.
Conclusion
All in all, the group were left with a mixed feeling. While they recognised that the Budget included some positive announcements, it ultimately failed to tackle some systemic problems, such as the undervaluation of care and problems with implementation.
Reaction to the Scottish Budget 2026-27
This blog will be updated over the coming days as we take time to go through the budget documentation.
Today’s budget made some important steps but lacked transformative action for women.
On taxes, we welcome the introduction of additional council tax bands for those in high value properties. Yet, today’s announcements shy away from delivering full scale reform, and revaluation remains essential to ensure fairer local taxes capable of adequately funding local services. The introduction of a private jet tax is also a positive step, targeting some of the wealthiest individuals for their highly polluting journeys and reinforcing the Government’s mission to addressing the climate emergency.
On the spending side, this budget contained several key announcements which, while welcome, fall short of ambition. SWBG joined many anti-poverty charities in calling for Scottish Child Payment to rise to £40 per week. The commitment to implement this increase for children under one is a step in the right direction but must quickly be followed with eligibility for all children.
We were disappointed by the absence of any funding to fulfill the Scottish Government’s commitment to end non-residential social care charging. The difference between statements made in today’s budget on social care funding and the reality of rising charges and tightening eligibility at the local level highlights the persistent gulf between the social care budget and the investment actually needed. The percentage increase in social care spending lags behind that of the NHS. It remains to be seen if this spending will resolve the NHS’ performance challenges; however, the absence of a focus on social care, which is also preventative, will only increase pressure on the NHS.
On childcare, this budget appears to increase the focus on school aged provision, with the announcement of a national breakfast club offer in all primary schools and the expansion of after-school activities clubs for children. This is an important development that will be welcomed by families across Scotland, particularly women, who disproportionally bear the brunt of balancing paid work and caring responsibilities. However, this announcement falls short of the Scottish Government’s commitment to deliver a national school age childcare system by the end of this Parliament, with the deadline now pushed to August 2027.
By contrast, Early Learning and Childcare (under 5s) sees no change, despite calls for reform to allow children to access their funded entitlement when they turn three, rather than from the following term. Meanwhile, the original ambition to develop an ELC system from one onwards appears to have faded, with no further news on support for eligible children or on widening the criteria for eligible two-year-olds to help close the attainment gap.
Today’s budget continues to adopt the traditional outlook of economic growth and the transition from oil and gas industries. Supporting workers in oil and gas to reskill to work in renewables is positive, but it falls short from transformative change, both in terms of increasing women’s representation in these sectors and widening our understanding of the economy. The omission of care as a key economic driver is glaring, undermining its role in supporting a well-functioning economy and forming a crucial part of the country’s social infrastructure.
Finally, alongside tax and spending measures, the budget announced £1.5 billion in efficiencies through Public Sector Reform. At SWBG, we have consistently stressed that such reforms must not exacerbate gender inequality. We will be reviewing the details over the coming days to assess the potential impact.
Women’s Voices on Pre-Budget Scrutiny: Perspectives from the Women’s Economic Empowerment Group
In the run up to the introduction of the Scottish budget for 26-27, our Women’s Economic Empowerment group looked at the pre-budget scrutiny undertaken by two parliamentary committees: the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.
The pre-budget scrutiny process aims to give committees greater influence on the formulation of the budget, improve transparency and raise public understanding and awareness of the budget.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee chose to look at mental health spending and how decisions on this area supported the delivery of the government’s priorities.
The Health, Social Care and Sport committee conducted its pre-budget scrutiny by issuing a general call for evidence that ran from 26th to 15th June. They also wrote directly to all health and social care partnerships requesting information. The call for evidence received 51 responses, 39 of which were from organisations. Additionally, the Committee held three evidence sessions hearing from eight people: three academics, three public sector workers and two representatives from the third sector, only one of whom was a woman.
The women who took part in our session queried why the committee didn’t hear directly from people with lived experience as part of their pre-budget scrutiny. They felt this could have aided the committee’s understanding about the way decisions taken to balance budgets had impacted on individuals who relied on services and those who provided care. This could have provided additional insight into how well current funding was helping to achieve the Government’s priorities.
The group also felt the language used in the evidence sessions and in the recommendations made by the committee could have been more accessible.
The committee’s findings on the need for greater transparency in order to “follow the money”, and to increase the focus on the outcomes achieved from this investment, echo what the group had learned about the key principles of gender budgeting, and highlight that these are essential if budgets are to drive change and achieve government priorities.
Given members of the group’s varying experiences of accessing services, and the postcode lottery that has developed, they are particularly interested in hearing the Government’s response to the committee’s call for the ring-fencing of certain elements of funding.
The group felt that the need for greater accountability, and for better linking of decisions taken at a local level to achieving the priorities set out by Government, is essential if individuals in communities across Scotland are to experience better outcomes.
Local Government, Housing and Planning committee
The Local Government, Housing and Planning committee sought to understand how the Scottish budget supports the Scottish Government and Local Government’s ambition to “work together strategically to advance public service reform”.
This committee took a different approach to their scrutiny. They wrote to key stakeholders inviting them to provide evidence. This closed call for evidence limited who the committee heard from.
The group were interested in why the committee decided to limit who they invited to hear from as part of their pre-budget scrutiny, and how this might have impacted on the breadth of evidence they heard.
The committee found that, while the Scottish Government is aiming to change public services ‘to be preventative, to better join up and be more efficient’, increased demand was impacting budgets and reducing the funding available for preventative approaches. The committee recommended that the budget must recognise the challenges of increased demands for councils’ services, in particular social care delivery.
Conclusion
While the two committees took slightly different approaches, a key question from members of the Women’s Economic Empowerment project was how these approaches helped meet the aim of improving transparency and raising public understanding of the budget. The lack of public or lived-experience involvement was clear, highlighting the need for more inclusive engagement to ensure that policy decisions reflect the realities of the communities parliamentarians aim to serve.
The group will also be keeping an eye on whether the committees’ recommendations influence the budget published next week, particularly in relation to social care delivery
RSSMailing list
To join our email list, simply enter your email address below.
