SWBG blog
Reflecting on the Scottish Draft Budget 2025-2026
While it’ll take some time to go through all the budget documentation, including equality impact assessments, and delve into the detail of the Equality and Fairer Scotland Statement, our first take on the budget is that it offers glimmers of hope for women who are feeling the crunch of years of rising prices. Yet more still needs to be done to invest in care and raise further revenue to support public services.
The headline grabbing commitment to scrap the 2-child limit is a much needed and welcome decision that cannot come soon enough for families affected by the policy. Ideally this is an action that would change at source with the UK Government scrapping the harmful policy, rather than Scotland’s limited budget envelope being used to mitigate UK actions. Time will tell how the two governments negotiate the delivery of this policy. What must stay front of mind through this process is the families impacted by it and the potential to lift 15,000 children out of poverty.
Although there’s difficulty comparing information to the current year’s budget due to changes made in reporting, some additional support for public services was announced, including the NHS and social care, and funds for local government. However, the Budget has fallen short of the investment required to make childcare more accessible, and to correct years of underinvestment in care services which are key for women.
In terms of reporting, it is welcome that the Government has tried to show the 2025-26 Budget against actual spend over the last year. However, there remains room for more transparency behind the figures to support budget scrutiny. We’ll share more on this in our full analysis from a gender budgeting perspective to be published later this month.
A short breakdown of the high (or low) lights from us:
On social care
After decades of underfunding, today’s commitments do not go far enough to meet the needs of this critical sector in the economy. This does a disservice to all those in need of social care support, the workforce (majority of whom are women) and unpaid carers who are picking up the pieces of underfunded services.
Within this we are disappointed that the government failed to commit funds to end social care charges. A policy the government has committed to by the end of this Parliament in 2026. We know from our work with Glasgow Disability Alliance’s women’s group that these charges are impacting disabled women’s lives and financial and care decisions they are making daily.
On childcare
This year’s budget maintained funding to childcare as set out in the 1140hours policy, which will likely see no changes to the way in which this policy is delivered, and no further expansion. Women responding to our childcare survey last year highlighted that a lack of flexibility in delivering early learning and childcare hindered access for some women. We know that the cost of childcare for 1- and 2-year-olds is severely impacting families’ finances, particularly women’s. Research by Pregnant then Screwed Scotland found that 4 in 5 (83.7%) mothers say they often feel childcare costs are the same or more than their income – meaning some parents are in fact, paying to work (1).
As with social care wages for staff in childcare are set at the real living wage as a minimum. This fails to take into account the need to view care work as skilled work and set wages that reflect this skill.
On Scottish Social Security
As mentioned at the top of this blog, the commitment to scrap the two-child limit has been the focus of a lot of attention on social security announcements alongside the changes to reinstate a winter fuel payment to all pensioners after means testing was introduced this year.
Changes were also made to the earnings threshold for Carers Support Payment, reflecting changes made for England and Wales. These are welcome but as this new payment comes into fully devolved control, further work on its rate and eligibility is necessary to recognise the work of unpaid carers and the levels of poverty they and their families experience.
The remainder of Scotland’s social security payments are set to rise by inflation rates set in September CPI which was 1.7%. This fails to take into account analysis laid out in the Scottish Fiscal Commission reports of expected inflation rates of 2.6% in 2025-26. This is continuing the UK Government’s failure to provide a genuine safety net to those who need it in our society.
Standstill funding for the Scottish Welfare Fund is likely to prove problematic as the fund needed topped up this year due to levels of demand. For those facing crisis situations, this is a vital lifeline that needs properly resourced and promoted.
On violence against women and girls funding
Commitment to funding the Delivering Equally Safe strategy through 2025-26 is vital for essential violence against women and girls services. While the Budget included resources for the coming financial year, these services need long-term multi-year funding settlements to ensure they can plan and deliver high quality support to women escaping domestic abuse.
On public sector pay
It’s good to see the Scottish Government publishing a pay policy alongside the Budget this year to give greater transparency on decision making. Although the Scottish Fiscal Commission have highlighted potential fiscal risks as they did not have workforce information during the forecasting process.
Women make up a significant proportion of public sector workers, often in lower paid and undervalued roles. The pay policy sets a broad envelope for public bodies but leaves final decisions to the individual bodies. Work to ensure equalities considerations are part of these decisions will be an important measure in tackling Scotland’s gender pay gap, which has risen in the last year.
On tax
The Scottish Government missed an opportunity to build more progressive tax actions into this year’s draft budget.
The end of the Council tax freeze will be welcomed by stretched Local Authorities, as well as the funding settlement from central government. Alongside others in the Tax Justice Scotland coalition, we called for a commitment to the revaluation of Council Tax bands to start the process of developing fairer local tax which supports our public services. This budget missed the opportunity to kickstart this overdue process, consequently failing to increase much needed extra revenue.
Small but important income tax changes for those on lower incomes were announced such as the raise of the threshold for basic and intermediate rate taxpayers. This decision will benefit women, who are more likely to be in these bands, and will maintain a progressive income tax policy.
The Budget was accompanied by the publication of a tax strategy which SWBG will be analyzing to consider how it will work to advance equality and maximise available resources in Scotland. Watch this space for a blog with our reflections.
While negotiation on Employers’ national insurance contributions between the Scottish and UK Governments will continue over the coming days and weeks, the Scottish Budget was silent on support to commissioned services and the voluntary sector. Care services (both social care and childcare) are likely to be hit hard by the changes, having a disproportionate impact on women who make up the vast majority of the care workforce.
On equalities analysis
Alongside the budget documentation is the publication of the Equality and Fairer Scotland Budget Statement. The aim of this document is to bring together how information on equalities has informed budget decision making. This is an important statement of intent by the government. The work put into the development of this publication during the budget process provides an important focus on equality considerations.
Additionally, multiple equality impact assessments have been published, for example relating to the Tax Strategy. The publication of these documents is a welcome step to increase transparency, and we look forward to reading the details to see how equality considerations have informed policy choices.
SWBG will be publishing our more detailed analysis of the Scottish Budget and how it measures up to the principles of gender budgeting in the New Year.
--
Responding to news of the delay of stage 2 of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill
The delay announced by the Minister for Social Care may not come as a surprise to anyone. The process for developing the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill has lost sight of the vision shared by those who use care services and carers in the development of the Independent Review on Adult Social Care.
What cannot be delayed is much needed investment in care services. Cuts to care services are being made, or are on the horizon, across Scotland. These cuts are reducing who is able to access care support services, will increase unmet need, and impact on the amount of unpaid care support that is required, which women deliver the majority of.
We know that women cannot wait for investment in care services. With the process for the Bill delayed we look to the forthcoming budget to bring much needed additional investment in care. With the focus of this investment seeking to improve outcomes for those who use care support services, reduce unpaid care demands, and deliver fair work for those in the social care workforce. For women receiving care support and as paid and unpaid carers this is a critical time for action.
For more information, please contact Sara Cowan, sara.cowan@swbg.org.uk 0141 648 7673
For details about the levels of long-term investment needed to transform social care support services in Scotland see our modelling research here.
Edinburgh Integration Joint Board Grants Programme
Heather Williams, Training Lead at the Scottish Women’s Budget Group, discusses the latest proposals made by Edinburgh Integration Joint Board on their Grants Programme
There has been a lot said this week about the proposal made by the Edinburgh Integrated Joint Board (EIJB) to give 90 days’ notice to stop funding 64 third sector organisations across the city. It has been estimated that this will result in over 100 job losses and will t potentially cost £16million in lost additional funding, leading to further disadvantage being experienced by over 50,000 people who use the affected services.[1]
The integration of health and social care services was intended to ensure ‘those who use health and social care services get the right care and support whatever their needs, at the right time and in the right setting at any point in their care journey, with a focus on community-based and preventative care’.[2] Yet what we see in many areas of Scotland is a system which is failing to meet its intended purpose of providing the right care and support to people. This is partly due to the lack of proper integration in relation to the provision of services or budgets.
The EIJB proposal is the latest made by IJB’s across Scotland[3] that highlights that the siphoning off services for those with health and social care needs leave many of our most disadvantaged communities and groups in a worse position than pre-integration.
The paper produced by the EIJB sets out that these cuts are needed to ensure that the best use is made of finite resources to allow the EIJB to meet its core and statutory responsibilities. Reviewing the paper using a gender budgeting lens highlights some questions about the assessment that forms the basis of the proposal and how we assess the impact of the way in which we spend money or make cuts.
Value for Money
The proposal states that ‘the size of the deficit is such that without decisive action, the EIJB will be unable to meet its statutory obligations and unable to protect our most vulnerable. In the absence of a substantial (and recurring) increase in income, the EIJB needs to reduce the scale of the services it provides’.
There is no denying the tight financial situation that the public sector is facing but, given the particular challenges that we face in Scotland with an ageing population, cutting support which prevents or delays people needing to use higher cost statutory services seems a perverse way to go about balancing budgets.
The paper also states: ‘the evaluation method used does not consider the opportunity cost associated with the grant allocations (i.e. what evidence is there that the activities funded through the EIJB grants programme was the best use of that money?). In the current economic climate where the EIJB (along with the rest of the public sector) is facing severe and persistent financial pressure against a background of rising demand and demographic change, a greater level of critical analysis is needed. It is not enough to know that money spent has brought benefit, the EIJB need to be assured that every pound has been spent to best effect and done as much good as possible’.
SWBG would not disagree with the need to question how the way we spend money helps us to achieve our outcomes and if there are better ways to spend money. Questioning the impact of how we raise and spend money is a key principle of gender budgeting. However, we contend that for this assessment to be fully effective all early intervention and preventative spend should have been looked at to assess its value, rather than just those currently funded through the grant programme. It is important that as part of this assessment we understand how current active programmes interact and impact on other areas of the system, including where additional costs may arise because of these changes.
The questions used to assess value (as outlined in the paper) would benefit from some clarity on the criteria used, at the moment it appears that potentially we are measuring apples and pears. Addressing the following points would increase transparency:
- what outcomes Edinburgh IJB were measuring projects against, and how these relate to the outcomes the projects were funded to meet;
- what evidence Edinburgh IJB used to identify if projects contributed to meeting the outcomes;
- what evidence Edinburgh IJB used to allocate monetary values to the return on investment;
- how were the funded organisations involved in the assessment.
The fact that the Integrated Impact Assessment highlights this proposal will protect staff in statutory services does lead to questions about the underpinning assumptions made about the worth of different interventions funded by the EIJB.
Delegated Functions
The paper provides an explanation of the decision taken using the work of the Income Maximisation projects funded stating that, while a well-evidenced and effective intervention, income maximisation/poverty reduction is not one of the EIJBs delegated functions. Yet according to the scheme of integration[5] one of the delegated functions from the City of Edinburgh Council is the provision of general social welfare services under the Social Work Scotland Act 1968. The act describes these as the provision of advice, guidance and assistance on the scale as may be appropriate.[6] This therefore raises questions about what is seen as a core function of the EIJB and how this matches the objectives set out in the EIJBs draft strategic plan as well as the integration scheme.
The proposal also raises questions about how the benefit derived by health and social care from income maximisation was identified, as it is not clear what evidence the18p return is based on. Given the low value associated with this, it is likely that this could be contested. A report for Public Health England shows that for every £1 invested in financial inclusion £8.40 is generated and that:
- 41% of clients in receipt of money advice was linked to an improvement in their health;
- 67% of clients had noticed a reduction in their stress in response to the advice received.[7]
Preventative Approach
The 2023 inspection of adult social care services in Edinburgh found that there was an inconsistent and uncoordinated approach to early intervention and prevention services. This meant that there was little focus on preventing hospital admissions due to staff being focused on supporting those who have been discharged from hospital. The Inspection found that one aspect of good practice was in relation to building capacity in communities where an extended period of grant funding had assisted in the work to improve population health and tackle inequalities.[8]
This proposal to remove funding from the 64 community organisations will undo the good work in this area highlighted by the 2023 Inspection.
The EIJB paper sets out that ‘most individuals accessing services funded from the grants programme would not meet the criteria of critical or substantial need and therefore the discontinuation of the grants programme would not lead to an increase in statutory service provision.’ It is unclear over what time period they are basing this assertion on. If it means immediately, this may be correct but from a gender budgeting perspective it is important that we take a lifetime perspective wherever possible. It is unclear from the paper what consideration has been given to how soon those who are being supported by the community organisations would be likely to show up in higher cost statutory services. Likewise, the proposal does not mention anything about how long the savings (they believe) these cuts will make will be sustained for.
The lack of disaggregated data about those who use the funded services makes it difficult to fully understand how likely this proposal is to actually realise the savings it states will be made.
Gender budgeting encourages us to be transparent and to show the workings behind decisions/assessments. This proposal would benefit from greater transparency and detail in relation to how the impact of the removal of services will interact with people’s need to use statutory services and what this will mean for demand and unmet need. This is particularly important to assess if the proposal will actually lead to savings anywhere other than on a column on the balance sheet.
Section 12 of the proposal provides data on what the £4.5million saving could fund if used differently including additional GP appointments. Section 34 states that preventative work which stops people attending the GP or A&E does not ‘directly translate into financial savings as cash can only be released by reducing the provision within those areas.’
This assessment seems to misunderstand the nature of early intervention and preventative work, which aims to stop problems happening in the first place or reduces the level of harm[9]. Preventative work delays the need for individuals to use higher cost statutory services. While the assessment undertaken appears to miss the impact that this decision could have on demand, the Integrated Impact Assessment does recognise the inherent risks in this cut that ‘there is likely to be reduced opportunity to act to prevent future needs arising, which may in turn lead to higher demand for services to meet critical / substantial need and therefore less capacity to deliver a quality service for the existing high need population.’ However, the mitigation they suggest that users can be signposted to other community services seems to be based on an untested assumption that there are services available and that there is capacity within these.
Reducing Health Inequalities
The initial grant programme aimed to reduce health inequalities along with funding early intervention and preventative approaches. Yet the paper is largely silent on this issue and how the proposal made will impact on the IJB’s responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
Both the paper and the Integrated Impact Assessment are largely silent on the number of people likely to be affected by this proposal, their characteristics and the areas they live in. The lack of disaggregated data means it is difficult to understand the potential longer-term impact of this and whether these savings will actually be realised or whether they will just result in money being spent in other areas. This is particularly important when it comes to a reduction in care services, and its likely impact on women’s economic inequality.
Conclusion
The IJB proposal highlights that the focus on the need to balance budgets year or year has led to a very short-term approach to assessing the value of investment and the impact of cuts. It misses out on identifying the impact these proposals will have on the public purse in the longer term, as well as on other parts of the system which can result in additional costs.
This approach has led to early intervention and prevention being deprioritised as found by the Accounts Commission, who are clear that tackling the issues facing IJBs must have early intervention and preventative approaches as its heart. Additionally, the Accounts Commission has stated that IJBs must ensure that the savings set out in its plans are actually achievable. We contend that this must be supported by the use of sex disaggregated data.[10]
To tackle the challenges currently faced in the public sector there must be a move away from the siloed approaches taken to the delivery of services and to consideration of costs and savings. Ensuring that decisions are based on the use and comprehensive analysis of sex-disaggregated data showing that savings are realistic and achievable is essential. Without this there is a very real risk of entrenching inequalities further.
[1] https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s76315/7.2%20Edinburgh%20Integration%20Joint%20Board%20Grants%20Programme%20and%20Public%20Social%20Partnership.pdf
[2] https://hscscotland.scot/integration/#:~:text=At%20its%20heart%2C%20integration%20is,community%2Dbased%20and%20preventative%20care.
[3] https://healthandcare.scot/stories/3766/k/
[5] https://www.edinburghhsc.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Integration-Scheme-1.pdf
[6] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/49/section/12
[7] https://observatory.leeds.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Improving-Public-Health-through-Income-Maximisation.pdf
[8] https://www.careinspectorate.com/images/documents/6997/City%20of%20Edinburgh%20inspection%20report%20March%202023.pdf
[9] https://publichealthscotland.scot/our-areas-of-work/public-health-approach-to-prevention/the-three-levels-of-prevention/
[10] https://audit.scot/publications/integration-joint-boards-finance-and-performance-2024#:~:text=In%20this%20Account%20Commission%20briefing,the%20bodies%20providing%20these%20services.
Reflections on the UK Budget
Our Coordinator, Sara Cowan, shares her thoughts on the UK Autumn Statement
Reflecting on the Autumn statement leaves us with mixed feelings as we look forward to what it could mean for women in Scotland.
It’s great to hear a Chancellor call out our need to ‘invest, invest, invest’. Our public services sorely need this after years of real-term cuts and constrained budgets. It chimes with the First Minister’s recent speech also flagging the country’s need for investment in our public services. With the same message coming from Westminster and Holyrood now is the time to be optimistic about the change women can see in Scotland.
It is critical that the coming investment is in both physical and social infrastructure to support all aspects of our economy. This means that alongside roads and public buildings, services such as education, health, social care and childcare are recognised for the critical role they play in our economy.
With a further £3.4bn coming to next year’s Scottish budget, care services need to be included in where the money is invested. Alongside action to support the NHS in Scotland, investment must be made in preventative care.
Our sisters at the UK Women’s Budget Group have shared their initial reaction, with more detail coming soon, highlighting the promising green shoots of change but the need for greater ambition on both changes to taxes and levels and areas for investment.
There was disappointingly little change to social security with policies like the two-child limit and the benefits cap remaining in place, and no mention of a review of thresholds for accessing means-tested support as we called for in our Women’s Survey 2024 report. More positively, the changes to the maximum amount that can be taken from benefits to repay debt was a step in the right direction. However, the uplift of 1.7% to benefit rates alongside maintaining the sanctions regime gives little room for optimism for those who require support from the social security system. Women are more reliant on social security due to undertaking more unpaid care work. We need to see change at the UK level to ensure there’s a safety net that provides people with the essentials of life. Action in Scotland, including raising the Scottish Child Payment is vital to provide much needed additional support.
It is good news that the minimum wage will be rising with women more likely to be in low paid employment. However, it’s necessary that the Scottish Government continues to support delivery of a real living wage to workers in Scotland as part of the process of ensuring fair work that pays. Sadly, the changes to the rate of employer’s NI contributions will, if realised, severely impact the third sector, which is already drained by the impact of standstill and/or insufficient funding at a time of increasing demand. The Coalition of Care and Support Providers have already raised the alarm, drawing attention to the implications that this could have for the provision of formal care, which of course could see increasing demands placed on unpaid carers. But with more women being employed in the third sector, the repercussions of this decision would be far more damaging.
As a final point, the UK Budget made important steps to increase tax, including of wealth through changes to Capital Gains Tax and 50% increase in air passenger duty for private jets. This should set the tone for the Scottish Government to use powers available to it to raise further revenue in Scotland and work to tackle inequality through options at its disposal, including the need for a revaluation of property rates on which Council Tax is based and a private tax embedded as part of an operational Air Departure Tax.
We’ll be discussing these questions and more in our upcoming webinar The UK Autumn Statement: challenges and opportunities ahead of the Scottish Budget. Don’t forget to join us. Sign up here.
Reflecting on Challenge Poverty Week 2024
Our Policy and Engagement Lead, Carmen Martinez, reflects on this year’s Challenge Poverty Week. -180.png)
Today marks the end of Challenge Poverty Week 2024, the Poverty Alliance’s annual event aimed at highlighting the ‘injustice of poverty in wealthy Scotland’. It is a time to pause and reflect on the work currently ongoing to tackle poverty in the country. For us reflecting on this week means drawing attention to women’s experiences of inequality and poverty, which our Women’s Survey 2024 describes in detail.
This report, published ahead of Challenge Poverty Week, provides a clear picture of how the recent inflationary period has impacted women’s economic resilience in Scotland. Amongst the different findings captured in the report, two stood out to us:
- 69% of the total 1026 women who took the survey feel financially worse off compared to the same time last year;
- 55% of the 992 women responding to questions relating to debt told us they have some type of debt, and 35% said they have no savings[1].
But the cost-of-living crisis is not affecting women equally. Disabled women, single mothers and women from minority ethnic communities are struggling with energy bills and food costs in greater numbers, and so are those with an annual household income of less than £20k per year (46% of which are single households without children)[2].
While inflationary pressures are the main reason why women find themselves in an ever more precarious economic position, a closer look at the reasons why they feel financially worse off highlights the gendered aspects of this crisis. Women told us about the impact Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) had on them, with some respondents stating how SMP’s low rate at times made it impossible to meet overall household costs. Women also pointed to the cost of childcare as a barrier to their ability to increase paid work and/or as a drain to their finances. Other reasons for feeling worse off include lack of savings, or savings being used up, stagnating wages or pay increases not keeping in line with inflation, fixed rate mortgage deals ending, wage increases reducing Universal Credit (UC), moving to UC from legacy benefits, helping adult children and health impacting on their ability to work. These reasons might also be applicable to men, particularly marginalised men, however, women’s likelihood to work part time and/or to work in low-paid jobs or to report a disability increases the risk of entrenching gender inequalities.
The question is, where does this end? We need to see progress towards a more caring economy which supports and values women. Yet our joint report with The Young Women’s Movement (YWM) further highlights the challenge of making this caring economy a reality. On the contrary, this research is a stark reminder of how structural gender inequality disadvantages women early in their lives. Statistics show that young women on average earn £5,000 less per year in comparison with young men of their age, which makes it difficult for young women to become financially resilient in times of crisis[3]:
“I’ve realised that I need to retrain in a new career if I ever want to own a house and be more financially independent. I’m currently a youth worker, an industry predominantly worked in by women. Typical ‘women’s roles’ pay very little, despite being essential work”[4].
The young women who engaged with us shared a sense of hopelessness about their future, their ability to live alone, to afford a home and/or to plan for a family.
The findings of both surveys speak about an economy that does not support young people, and women particularly. Additionally, these findings should serve as a warning of the disadvantages and costs that an economy divorced of all social purpose can create. If we want to see an end to poverty in Scotland, we need to transform our economy so it can create thriving communities. With work on next year’s budget underway, it is a necessary time to keep reflecting on these issues and think about how budgetary decisions can better work for women.
Notes
Both reports make specific recommendations for the UK and the Scottish Governments as well as for Local Authorities. You can find these in full here:
- The Scottish Women’s Budget Group, “Women’s Survey 2024. Navigating increasing costs and debt”.
- The Young Women’s Movement and the Scottish Women’s Budget Group, “I am just keeping my head above water. Young women’s experiences of the cost-of-living crisis in Scotland”.
[1] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-Womens-Survey-2024-FINAL.pdf
[2] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-Womens-Survey-2024-FINAL.pdf
[3] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-YWM-Cost-of-Living-Young-Women-report.pdf
[4] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-YWM-Cost-of-Living-Young-Women-report.pdf
RSSMailing list
To join our email list, simply enter your email address below.
