SWBG blog

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