In one of my many attempts to find out why government does what it does [and what it doesn't] on equality, I tried to find out why something called EBAG was given favoured access to government and particularly to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney.
 |
| John Swinney |
EBAG [the Equality & Budget Advisory Group] claims to do all sorts of good, Mom & Apple Pie, work. You can form your own view just how good that is by reading the not so plain language web pages on EBAG. For some odd reason - quirky sense of humour, maybe? - the main EBAG page uses a graphic of money falling into and overflowing from an outstretched hand. It certainly can't be a metaphor of the government largesse flowing to the voluntary sector which does most of the work in making equalities happen in Scotland.
I have been trying to establish some kind of transparency and accountability for EBAG. It seemingly influences John Swinney as he ponders how to allocate the Scottish budget and take the likely impact on equalities into account. A grand concept, but who decides who sits on EBAG and thus influences John's decisions? I have asked twice now and have yet to get a clear, unequivocal answer. I've been told :
members of the EBAG have been chosen on the basis of their ability to provide meaningful input into the Group's work
Have a look at the members on the EBAG web page. 6 government divisions have seats. The government Equality Unit leads and chairs the Group. COSLA has a seat, though they have a questionable track record on delivering equalities across local government.
The Equality & Human Rights Commission [EHRC] also gets a seat on EBAG. Odd. The regulator on equalities, the police on equalities, the EHRC, is inside the tent when it comes to influencing financial decisions of government. So, if the Cabinet Secretary for Finance decides to slash direct government spending on supporting organisations working in, say, race equality, is the EHRC able to critique that decision? Unlikely if you are part of the process, no matter how ambiguous.
So, that is 7 government seats, a seat for local government, and a seat inside the tent for a body which should be outside the tent. Or put another way, 9 of the usual suspects.
And how many seats are there for the people who can give oxygen to the views and experiences of Scotland's diverse equality communities, when the rare opportunity comes along to nudge the Cabinet Secretary for Finance? Count for yourself. 2 seats. One for the Scottish Women's Budget Group, and one for the Equality Network, an organisation representing part of the LGB & T community in Scotland.
Nobody representing the views and experiences of the Black Minority Ethnic communities. Nobody allowed to explain to the Cabinet Secretary how a different budget allocation could help get more disabled people into work. Nobody claiming the rights of older people to be heard in the detailed workings of this group, and equally no voice for young adults and children.
Creating and sustaining unelected bodies, which lack transparency, and which are unaccountable to the public, is part of the wellspring from which flows the structural and institutional discrimination which remains endemic in the public sector.
It is quite simply wrong, and is a stain on Scotland's reputation in the world of equalities. Access to influencing decisions, or even just nudges towards a maybe, on Scotland's budgets needs to be open and transparent, and the opportunity made equally available to all.
Government has recently been made to accept that it is a human right that the police must not formally interview a person on suspicion of an offence without the presence of a lawyer. It is surely also a matter of human rights that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance ensures his EBAG does not continue to attempt to nudge his decisions unless people from all the equality communities are properly involved in shaping the strength and direction of those nudges.
Too government dominated as usual. You are right to identify the lack of transparency around groups that are established like this. I hope that the EBAG recognises that it should involve the other marginalised communities.
ReplyDeleteEquality proofing budgets is not something governments have done well in the past. That EBAG exists is a sign of progress. Real commitment to change on the part of the government is something else.
As budgets are devolved downwards the danger is that national government shakes its head and says it has done what it can but can't influence local decisions that ensure that facing inequality continues to be an everyday experience for some people.