SWBG blog

Equalities, women and cuts to public services

Our Coordinator, Carmen Martinez, reflects on the way in which Aberdeenshire Council justified its decision to close their out-of-school-hours care service and the language used by the Glasgow HSCP in their EQIA Budget Report, and questions whether these are examples of a broader trend.  

A few weeks ago, Angela O’Hagan published her latest article ‘Gender Budgeting in Scotland since Devolution’ (O'Hagan, 2024), which reflects on how gender budgeting was introduced in Scotland, and its progress ever since. One of Angela’s points was about the “evaporation of gender in the framing of equalities" (O'Hagan, 2024), and the challenges that this has posed for advancing gender equality. She explains that this lack of focus has meant that the systemic issues that rely on women providing care, including unpaid care, are still to be tackled by the very economic strategies designed to transform or develop the economy (the Scottish Government’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation being a clear example of this) (O'Hagan, 2024). As a result, so much needed (and promised) change is still to materialize, at least to the extent of making a difference to women’s lives.  

The arguments and overall challenge described in the article certainly felt familiar. There is a lack of consistency in the way gender analysis is used in policymaking in Scotland, an issue that we (and other organisations across the women’s sector) often highlight through our work. Over the last few months, however, we have noticed what seems to be the beginning of a new trend which poses a further barrier to achieving the change that we want to see. I am referring to the way in which cuts to public services and/or policy programmes have been explained as a means to drive ‘equalities’ or how the co-option of language can hide the lack of public investment in services.    

A case on point is how Aberdeenshire Council has justified its decision to close their out of school care (OOSC) provision. A report written for the Council’s Education and Children’s Services Committee (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024) provides background information in relation to this service, which includes eight settings serving 15 of the 146 primary schools in Aberdeenshire and is used by 349 children (2% of primary school pupils). Current provision is down from the original 15 Council-run OOSC services set up in 2019. This is due to challenges with recruitment and retention of staff and to changing demand from parents/carers, partly explained by the impact of the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. The report also highlights that while the service was originally set up to recoup costs, this never happened, and with increasing budget pressures, it recommends that the remaining open settings close from July 2024, solving an expected overspend of £700,000 (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024). From this perspective, the closure of this service is explained as a cost-management exercise. However, the report goes beyond this, citing inequities in service provision (both in terms of location of settings and the children the service is provided to), as another reason for stopping the council’s OOSC service:

“82% of children accessing local authority provision coming from Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) Deciles 8, 9 and 10 (least deprived) and no children from Deciles 1, 2 and 3 (most deprived)” (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024). 

Additionally, the report refers to other issues with the current model, particularly how it "is limiting the scope of opportunity for developing the wider childcare sector", which involves private, voluntary, and independent (PVI) settings (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024). The key message is as follows. The Council are subsidising a small number of children in the least deprived areas, which isn't fair or equitable, while delivery is limiting the development of the wider sector. Thus, provision of such a costly service must come to an end, particularly at a time of tight budgets.  

There are several issues in relation to how the Committee’s report presents the information leading to the recommendation on the closure of the Council’s service. For example, the use of the SIMD, while helpful, does not tell us anything about ‘who’ will be directly affected and in what ways. The report’s impact assessment shows that some consideration has been given to the impact on women and low-income groups. While this is slightly at odds with the argument about ‘inequities in service provision’, the main issue here is the use of ‘equalities’ as a reason to close the service. Why? Because it detracts attention from the consequences that the lack of wraparound care will have on women, their ability to seek or retain paid work, and the repercussions of this for gender equality. In other words, the Council’s decision seems to miss sight of the systemic barriers that ultimately create the conditions for women’s inequality and poverty.  

The danger is that, with increasingly challenging budgets, this type of reasoning becomes the norm, resulting in more gender-blind approaches to policymaking and budget setting processes.  

Another case is the language used by the Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership in their Strategic Plan for 2023-26 (Glasgow IJB, 2023) and EQIA Budget Report 2024-2025 (Glasgow HSCP, 2024). "Maximising people’s independence" is the foundation of this HSCP’s Strategic Plan, which also acknowledges that "this doesn’t mean asking people to live without any support at all" (Glasgow IJB, 2023). However, the EQIA Budget Report concedes that 

“efficiencies have been identified through the implementation of the Maximising Independence Programme (…) This option includes a reduction of 20 FTE. As a result of work to minimise the need for escalation to higher levels of formal care, there is scope for a reduction in staff in line with demand” (Glasgow HSCP, 2024). 

This puts into question whether behind the Glasgow City HSCP’s objective of "maximising people’s independence" there was an intention to provide support only when strictly necessary, contravening one of the aims of the strategic plan to "deliver services within a human-rights based approach" (Glasgow IJB, 2023).. It also lends weight to our theory about this being a case where the co-option of language hides decreases in public service provision. As a result, the ‘status quo’ prevails, and with it, the challenges faced by disabled women as highlighted in our recent work with the Glasgow Disability Alliance (GDA, SWBG, 2023).

What now? 

The Scottish Women’s Budget Group will continue questioning how public bodies make budget decisions and the impact of these. At a time when women are disproportionally being affected by the cost-of-living crisis, using gender budgeting tools to scrutinise policy interventions and budget decisions is as important as ever.  

References

1. O'Hagan, A. (2024) 'Gender Budgeting in Scotland since Devolution', in Scottish Affairs 33.1: 72–84 . Link: Scottish-Affairs-Gender-Budgeting-2024-AOH-aeab676f04b2b794.pdf (bpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com)
2. Aberdeenshire Council, (2024) 'Report to Education and Children's Services Committee. Aberdeenshire Out-of-School Care (OOSC) Provision'. Link: 07 Aberdeenshire Out of School Care OOSC Provision.pdf (moderngov.co.uk)
   FEBRUARY 2024 07 Aberdeenshire Out of School Care OOSC Provision.pdf (moderngov.co.uk)
3. Glasgow City Integration  Joint Board (2023), "Strategic Plan for Health and Social Care 2023-2026". Link: https://glasgowcity.hscp.scot/sites/default/files/publications/IJB%20Financial%20Allocations%20and%20Budgets%202024-2025.pdf 
4. Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership (2024), "Outcome of Preliminary Equality Impact Assessments", Budget Financial Allocations. Link: IJB Financial Allocations and Budgets 2024-2025.pdf (hscp.scot) 
5. Glasgow Disability Alliance and Scottish Women's Budget Group (2023) Policy Briefing. Link: SWBG-GDA-BriefingPaper.pdf 

Women and active travel: lessons from our work with Sustrans

Our Training Lead, Heather Williams, discusses why the work we did with Sustrans is key to reducing inequalities in active travel.

Over the last few months, we’ve been working with Sustrans to look at how gender budgeting approaches can be used in the active travel field. Scotland has set out a vision for active travel to be ‘seen as the norm, regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, or background’ [1]. While the Scottish Government has committed to spending 10% of the transport budget on active travel infrastructure, increased investment in active travel alone will not lead to the increased diversity needed to achieve their vision. 

There’s a theory that says we measure what we value. If we look at active travel policy from this perspective, what do we see?  

One of the strategic objectives in the Active Travel Framework [2] is ‘Reduced Inequalities’. Despite this, the outcomes and indicators focus on the need to improve the availability and safety of infrastructure for ‘all’ and on increasing the number of kilometres built.  

This tells us something about where the strategic focus is of those involved in designing the active travel strategy. It also highlights why the work we have carried out with Sustrans is essential.  

Our Women’s Survey [3] which looked at transport and active travel last year showed that: 

• Only 5% of those responding to our survey used cycling as a main mode of transport, this dropped to none for single parents. 

• 17% used walking/wheeling as the main mode of transport, this increased to 23% for single parents 

• 59% of respondents to the survey felt questions on access and safety of cycle routes was not applicable to them, 34% of respondents felt the same for walking and wheeling routes 

Those who completed our survey told us that the reason they didn’t walk, wheel or cycle for journeys is because routes didn't take them to where they needed to go, or they didn’t feel safe on the routes available. Our survey echoed what other research has found, that women are more likely to trip-chain engaging in multi-purpose and multi-stop trips related to caring and other household tasks. Those who completed our survey told us that current infrastructure does not allow them to undertake these journeys in the time available to them:

      ‘There are "nice" cycle routes but a lack of safe practical routes between shops, train stations & home etc.‘ 

      ‘No segregated cycle lanes anywhere I need to go. Nothing that connects me to even simple places like post office, shops, etc. Some cycle lane for leisure, but not far'. 

      ‘Kids go to school in next town to our home and I work in neighbouring local authority area so need to travel quite a bit to do school run and get to work'. 

To help ensure that as many people as possible benefit from spending on active travel, our work with Sustrans has highlighted it’s essential that: 

• We know our local communities and consider the journeys people take and how active travel can support them to do this. This means asking why people travel and where they need to get to and designing routes which support these journeys. 

• We design (and fund) community engagement processes to help hear from a diverse range of people.  

• We collect sex disaggregated data on those who take part in any community consultations or engagement exercises, so we know who we have heard from and who we haven’t.    

• We carry out Equality Impact Assessments in the early stages of any project to ensure that they are as accessible as possible. These should be reviewed and updated as the project progresses. 

• We ensure that active travel projects support people to undertake care related journeys. This means looking at investing in infrastructure to support people walking and wheeling as well as in cycling infrastructure. The design of these need to be based on providing people with as direct access as possible to the places they need to get to. 

• We consider women’s perceptions of safety in the design of active travel schemes using tools such as “safety audits and safety tours” as standard practice.  

• We invest in social infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure in order to grow the numbers from diverse groups who walk, wheel and cycle. Projects such as Women on Wheels are essential if we are to diversify those who benefit from active travel expenditure. We have to recognise that funding these types of programmes is as important as building the physical infrastructure.  

• We ensure there is space for people to stop and sit in the design of active travel infrastructure.  

As Transport Scotland take over some of the work which has been carried out by Sustrans, it is crucial that the learning from our work is taken forward and that those involved at all stages of delivering the active travel strategy are able to apply an intersectional gender perspective to address inequalities in active travel. If we continue to develop and design these projects as if they will benefit everyone without considering the need of specific groups, we will continue to embed inequality. 

References

[1] Transport and Travel in Scotland 2014 | Transport Scotland

[2] Key policy approaches to improving the uptake of walking and cycling in Scotland for travel | Transport Scotland

[3] Womens-Survey-2023-Transport-Report.pdf (swbg.org.uk)

Women's Survey 2024 Launch

On Friday 1st March we launched our Women's Survey 2024! 

Our 2024 Women’s Survey is once again looking to capture women in Scotland's experiences of how they are managing the cost-of-the living crisis and the impact this is having on them and their families. While headline inflation figures have reduced during 2023 and into 2024, prices are still higher than they have ever been, and households' disposable income is lower now than in 2019. [1]  

Our previous surveys have shown that women are often the shock of absorbers of poverty for their households skipping meals, not replacing clothes or shoes for themselves or skipping haircuts etc. to try and protect other family members from the impact of increasing costs. 

‘Sometimes my meals are very different from everyone else’s’ [2] 

The tactics women are using to manage their household budgets have been one of reducing spending on non-essentials to afford items like food and heat. Yet, our surveys have shown that for many this hasn’t been enough, and that single parents and disabled households often must make the decision between heating and eating. 

With the UK having tipped into technical recession as a result of household incomes declining, as part of this year's survey we have added some additional questions around debt and savings. From previous surveys we know that women have been using savings or credit cards to manage regular monthly expenditure and that they are worried about the impact this will have on their retirement. This year, we want to explore the potential longer-term consequences of the current crisis for women.  

Additionally, this year's survey also looks at public sector reform. In November 2023 we heard the Deputy FM say that  

‘there was “no doubt” that staffing for services would have to be reduced due to tight budgets and inflation-driven pay deals’. [3]  

Given the consequences that declining public services have on women, who often end up impacted or picking up the slack caused by this, we feel it's important that we understand what good public sector reform looks like for women and we want to hear from you about this.  

Finally, with the country soon heading to the polls, we are keen to know women’s priorities for the upcoming UK General Election. Decisions made at Westminster have a great impact on women in Scotland. Analysis by the UK Women’s Budget Group last week showed that cuts to National Insurance contributions in the Spring Budget will benefit better off men, impacting on women’s inequality [4]. Let us know what really matters to you so we can advocate for policies that make a difference to women’s lives. 

How can you help us?

We’d like to hear different views from women across Scotland. This is crucial for us to understand the different realities of women in   all local authorities. We are particularly interested in hearing from more ethnic minority women, women that are carers, and women who are single parents.

We are also offering a £25 voucher to 10 people who complete the survey, this will be selected at random. 

If you haven’t done so already, we’d like your support to share the Women's Survey 2024 to help us reach a diverse range of women across Scotland. You can do this by: 

• Sharing the survey through your social media account (if possible): LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X (Twitter). 
• Sharing amongst your networks
• Sharing with any women’s groups you might work with 

References 

[1] https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/tuc-uk-families-suffering-worst-decline-living-standards-g7 

[2] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-Cost-of-Living-report-proof-06.pdf

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-67539045

[4] Tax giveaways to better off men will cost worse off women, says WBG - Womens Budget Group

The cost of funding tax giveaways. Reflections ahead of the UK Spring Budget 2024

Blog by Heather Williams, SWBG Training Lead

With a general election on the horizon, the newspapers and TV are full of the potential tax cuts being considered as the Chancellor comes under increasing pressure from MPs worried about their re-election chances. The hope is that tax giveaways in the 2024 Spring Budget can have a similar effect to those in Norman Lamont’s Budget in 1992.[1]

Doing the news rounds yesterday, Jeremey Hunt promised to embark on the ‘long path’ to lower taxation,[2] which suggests that the Chancellor hasn’t paid much attention to the recent YouGov poll. This showed that 3/4s of those polled were not supportive of personal tax cuts and would rather see the money used to prop up already crumbling public services.[3]

Due to the self-imposed fiscal rules the Chancellor is choosing to adhere to, the outlook for UK public services is potentially bleak. The decisions made this week could have worrying long term consequences for the UK economy, which has already slipped into a technical recession after being stagnant for a long period of time.[4] The impact of the cost-of-living crisis on the back of the pandemic and austerity has squeezed households’ disposable income, affecting their spending decisions. Our Women’s Surveys for the last two years have shown that households have been rapidly cutting back on what they see as unnecessary expenditure such as meals out, haircuts or clothes, all of which has had a knock-on effect on the High St.[5] While the Chancellor may hope further tax cuts could reverse this trend, with interest rates high, inflation still high, income tax personal allowance thresholds remaining static (pushing more into paying tax or into higher tax bands), and cuts to public spending including a punitive social security system, this short-term approach is unlikely to provide sufficient stimulus.

According to the OBR, the impact of the Chancellor's decisions in the Autumn to prioritise tax cuts at the expense of further investment in public services along with inflation has meant that departmental spending is facing a £19bn real term loss by 2027-28.[6] Many believe that current public spending plans for both revenue and investment are illusory and cannot be sustained, with 3 councils in England having already issued bankruptcy notices and another 9 requesting further financial support.  If the Chancellor chooses to cut personal taxes on the back of announcing further cuts to public spending, then this will be based on nothing more than ‘fantasy.’[7]

Additionally, if the Chancellor sticks to his current spending plans for public services, this will mean no further consequentials for the Scottish Government.  In Scotland this has meant that in this year's budget the Scottish Government has cut back on planned capital expenditure (due to a reduction in the grant funding in this area and the impact of inflation). As a result of decisions taken by the Scottish Government to prioritise investment in roads, namely the A9, they have had to make substantial cuts to investment in social housing and hospitals[8]

Women’s Groups across the UK (including SWBG) are warning the Chancellor that his decisions risk putting ‘gender equality into reverse’ due to the disproportionate impact that cuts to public spending, needed to balance any reductions in tax, have on women.[9]

Ahead of Wednesday, the Chancellor needs to decide if he is going to prioritise the UK’s long term financial and social stability or roll the dice on pre-election giveaways in the hope that this Budget can do what Norman Lamont’s did for the Conservative Party in 1992.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/mar/03/budget1999.budget7 

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68461581 

[3] https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1758539234733076563 

[4] https://www.ft.com/content/94ecda75-35de-4d09-bda6-f3a7c71dc3c6 

[5] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-Cost-of-Living-report-proof-06.pdf 

[6] https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/obr-autumn-statement-measures-will-cause-19bn-fall-in-public-spending-power#:~:text=Speaking%20in%20a%20press%20briefing,eroded%20by%20around%20%C2%A319bn 

[7] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/five-things-look-out-spring-budget-2024 

[8] https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-budget-2024-25/pages/2/#:~:text=Our%20%C2%A36.25%20billion%20capital,ambitions%20will%20not%20be%20easy 

[9] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/29/cuts-to-public-services-in-england-will-reverse-gender-equality-unions-warn