I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I confess that I do so with a degree of trepidation, as someone who is not a member of the Finance Committee and is certainly not an economist.
One concern is that the budget is often presented in techie language as a hugely complex and complicated issue.
One is given the feeling that only the high priests of the financial world can comment at a level that is appropriate to the debate.
We should recognise that the budget is about the real world.
We need to talk about the budget in terms of its real-world consequences.
We all find it easy to speak at great length on what we care about and what we believe in, but the test for the Government is not just to say what priorities it cares about but to show how it wills those priorities through its budget process.
A central job of Government is not simply to assert policy commitments or even to elevate some of those to issues of principle; a Government must talk about what it will do when faced with conflicting issues of principle and with a number of things to choose between.
The challenge for the current Government—a challenge to which the previous speaker perhaps failed to rise—is to accept that it cannot simply presume as a self-evident truth that certain things are good because they seem to be good.
The budget process, which is the process of testing the budget, is about moving from assertion and belief to evidence that the proposals will make a difference.
Given that the test for the Government through the budget process is to identify priorities, to make choices and to justify those choices, the budget needs to be transparent and its assumptions need to be tested.
There are real concerns about the capacity of the draft budget to show what priority the Government gives to issues of equalities and social justice.
Last year, there were serious concerns about the lack of commentary in the budget documents on equalities, which was identified as a weakness.
This year's budget is weaker still.
Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission have commented on concerns about the capacity of local government to deliver on, or even to understand, its equality duties.
There is clear evidence that the budget process is not helping by providing certainty and confidence about the Government's priorities.
There is clear evidence that the Scottish Government has made political choices on the issues of the council tax and small business bonus scheme, but the rationale for those choices is missing.
That is where proper equality proofing—and anti-poverty proofing—would do a job.
I understand why people say that equality proofing is very complex and should not necessarily appear in the budget documents.
However, it should be at the heart of the process.
Regardless of the size of the cake, the issue is how the cake is shared out.
Therefore, equality proofing of the budget must be central to the process; it is not a bonus for the days when the sun is shining.
Equality proofing is even more—rather than less—important when budgets are under pressure.
On that basis, I come to the issue of single outcome agreements.
For me, there remains a central conundrum about single outcome agreements that has not been addressed by ministers.
On previous occasions, ministers have said that local authorities have a statutory responsibility to fulfil their equality duties.
However, local authorities say that single outcome agreements do not require equality impact assessments.
We do not know which of those positions is correct.
We need to know that, because otherwise there is a concern that those responsibilities will be deprioritised.
One explanation given is the timescales involved in single outcome agreements, but those timescales are entirely in the hands of the Government.
No guidance has been issued on whether single outcome agreements require equality impact assessments.
In the meantime, resource decisions are being made on the basis of what has been decided in single outcome agreements—not to mention the whole challenge of equal pay, which the Equal Opportunities Committee wants us to consider.
Let me give an example.
According to Scottish Women's Aid's analysis of single outcome agreements, only seven of the 32 agreements mention violence against women.
To be fair to him, in response to an oral question on violence against women, the Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell, said:
"I am sure that that is a priority for all councils throughout Scotland."—[Official Report, 4 December 2008; c 13112.]
However, the issue is not of sufficient priority for a significant number of councils to include it in their single outcome agreements.
What will the Government do?
What is the next stage?
Will the Government say to local government that single outcome agreements require equality impact assessments?
Will it say that issues such as violence against women should be mentioned in single outcome agreements?
When we come to that point, central Government steps back. In my view, that is not good enough.
The reality is that the budget will fail to take an equality impact perspective if, for example, a Scottish Enterprise skills strategy does not recognise the high number of people who have a disability among those within what used to be called the NEET—not in education, employment or training—group; or if modern apprenticeships face a challenge in relation to occupational segregation, which affects economic opportunity; or if the Government does not spend on infrastructure to address the particular needs of groups who are further from the labour force than others.
In such cases, the budget will fail to address equalities and poverty issues.
7.12.08
6.12.08
Forced marriages - speech in the Scottish Parliament 5th. December 2008
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on forced marriages, and I welcome the consultation document that has been issued today.
The minister has outlined why the consultation will be important.
Just last week, the first forced marriage civil protection order was issued in England.
If for no reason other than the fact that the protection offered in other parts of the United Kingdom should be offered in Scotland too, it is essential that we get the consultation right and act accordingly.
I welcome the minister's decision to hold this debate during the 16 days of action against violence against women, thus placing the issue in the broader context of the position of women across the world and the prevalence of violence against women in its many forms.
I always feel rather ambivalent about the Scottish Parliament debate at this time of year, during the 16 days of events.
However, it is of course encouraging to acknowledge that we have made progress, and it is right that we take the time to highlight the positive aspects.
I believe that doing so reflects acceptance—across the chamber and beyond—of the continuing seriousness of the issue, and acceptance of the impact that violence against women has on the life chances, health and wellbeing of, and opportunities for, women and their families.
It is always refreshing to meet people who have been so resilient in their campaigning.
Such people have gathered here today on the issue of there being no recourse to public funds.
I hear what the minister said in that regard, and I urge the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work together to see how creatively they can solve the problem.
Local Women's Aid organisations ought not to be picking up the tab, and it may be that the Scottish Government can offer emergency resources to take the burden off local organisations while work on the bigger picture is sorted out.
The vulnerable women at the centre of these issues must be the focus of our actions.
Such debates always highlight just how much remains to be done to tackle violence against women in its many forms.
There is always a danger that we might be overwhelmed by the challenge and by the ways in which that violence is expressed, including domestic abuse, rape, the trafficking and enslavement of women, prostitution and forced marriage.
Those examples are experienced globally, but progress will be made through local action—step by determined step—to support individual women, families and communities.
The consultation on forced marriage should be placed in that context.
In discussing forced marriage, we continue to bear down on the broader issue of violence against women.
Forced marriage is a distinct problem and it must be challenged, but it is a problem that is shaped by the same attitudes that still mean that—although women can smash all sorts of glass ceilings and can redefine their roles and expectations—even the most talented and pioneering women can be inhibited and controlled.
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Does the member acknowledge that 38 per cent of the victims in forced marriages are male?
Johann Lamont: I absolutely accept that forced marriage is an issue that is not simply for women—although, because of defined roles in communities, it affects more women than men.
However, I do not in any way dismiss the suffering of some young men in such circumstances.
No matter how talented individual women are, they can be scared in their own homes, and threatened and intimidated outside, too.
Experience tells us that—with forced marriage as with other issues—caring is not enough.
Feeling for the survivors will not address the problems.
We need to understand the causes; resource the people who know how to keep women safe; and tackle the causes through education, provision and legislative action.
There is an added dimension to the debate on forced marriage—the fear of causing some kind of cultural offence.
However, as one young Asian Scot said to me, any right-thinking person must believe that it is absolutely unacceptable to force someone into marriage. [Interruption.]
Even if it happens to only one person, that is one too many.
We welcome the consultation, because it is critical to get it right—to act to protect and support women, but without the unintended consequence of forced marriage being driven underground.
However, we hope that whatever action is taken will be kept under close examination, to ensure that it is having the desired effect.
We must not close the door on any options, and we must ensure that protection is afforded to people facing the problem across the whole United Kingdom.
It is essential to have a proper understanding of the pressures on young people who may be forced into marriage—to know how difficult it is to resist forced marriage and how isolated and vulnerable a person can feel.
There is an irony in the fact that young people are sometimes forced into marriage precisely because they are challenging the roles that are expected of them.
In any provision that we make, we must understand the need to protect the individual and give them both the confidence that they will continue to be protected and the knowledge that, if they have the courage to resist, we will support them in doing that.
We must be able to offer safety, advice, the time that is needed and support in the future.
Young people in such situations need trusted intermediaries—people who understand the families' cultural and community sensitivities and who are able to rebut and resist some of the arguments that are put to the young people.
I ask the minister to reflect on how we can consult the most powerful voices—the voices of those who can talk to their own experience, which are often silenced because they do not have the confidence to come forward.
He may wish to think further about how private consultation can be undertaken with some of those who have survived and are living with their experiences.
There is also the question of education in communities that still believe that forced marriage is reasonable.
It is not an issue of religious belief; it is something that can be challenged inside communities.
People can be supported to do that important work.
There is an issue with resources.
Scottish Women's Aid's analysis of single outcome agreements shows that only seven local authorities make any mention of domestic abuse or violence against women as a local outcome.
What reassurance can the minister give that he will act to prevent those issues from being de-prioritised at a local level?
I am not sure whether he is consulting COSLA on that analysis, and I do not think that he is consulting community planning partnerships.
That might be a useful starting point for some of the discussions around the resource implications and the education and support side as well as around the broader legal matters.
When will the advice on equality impact assessments and equality responsibilities in relation to single outcome agreements be issued?
We were promised that advice, but it has not yet appeared.
What has been the role of the national group on violence against women in shaping the consultation?
The group is a powerful forum for such discussions, but I do not know whether it has discussed the issue, and if so when, or whether it plans to discuss it.
That information would be useful to us in forming our view of the consultation. [Interruption.]
What is the group's role in assessing, monitoring and considering the implications of single outcome agreements?
I welcome the debate and recognise the progress that has been made.
I welcome the consultation although, as ever, I regret that it is necessary.
Finally, I congratulate all those in the Parliament and far beyond who ensure that the issues facing survivors of domestic abuse and violence against women and those who are coping with forced marriages are kept in the public eye so that action can be taken.
I urge the minister to sustain the focus on all fronts.
The minister has outlined why the consultation will be important.
Just last week, the first forced marriage civil protection order was issued in England.
If for no reason other than the fact that the protection offered in other parts of the United Kingdom should be offered in Scotland too, it is essential that we get the consultation right and act accordingly.
I welcome the minister's decision to hold this debate during the 16 days of action against violence against women, thus placing the issue in the broader context of the position of women across the world and the prevalence of violence against women in its many forms.
I always feel rather ambivalent about the Scottish Parliament debate at this time of year, during the 16 days of events.
However, it is of course encouraging to acknowledge that we have made progress, and it is right that we take the time to highlight the positive aspects.
I believe that doing so reflects acceptance—across the chamber and beyond—of the continuing seriousness of the issue, and acceptance of the impact that violence against women has on the life chances, health and wellbeing of, and opportunities for, women and their families.
It is always refreshing to meet people who have been so resilient in their campaigning.
Such people have gathered here today on the issue of there being no recourse to public funds.
I hear what the minister said in that regard, and I urge the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work together to see how creatively they can solve the problem.
Local Women's Aid organisations ought not to be picking up the tab, and it may be that the Scottish Government can offer emergency resources to take the burden off local organisations while work on the bigger picture is sorted out.
The vulnerable women at the centre of these issues must be the focus of our actions.
Such debates always highlight just how much remains to be done to tackle violence against women in its many forms.
There is always a danger that we might be overwhelmed by the challenge and by the ways in which that violence is expressed, including domestic abuse, rape, the trafficking and enslavement of women, prostitution and forced marriage.
Those examples are experienced globally, but progress will be made through local action—step by determined step—to support individual women, families and communities.
The consultation on forced marriage should be placed in that context.
In discussing forced marriage, we continue to bear down on the broader issue of violence against women.
Forced marriage is a distinct problem and it must be challenged, but it is a problem that is shaped by the same attitudes that still mean that—although women can smash all sorts of glass ceilings and can redefine their roles and expectations—even the most talented and pioneering women can be inhibited and controlled.
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Does the member acknowledge that 38 per cent of the victims in forced marriages are male?
Johann Lamont: I absolutely accept that forced marriage is an issue that is not simply for women—although, because of defined roles in communities, it affects more women than men.
However, I do not in any way dismiss the suffering of some young men in such circumstances.
No matter how talented individual women are, they can be scared in their own homes, and threatened and intimidated outside, too.
Experience tells us that—with forced marriage as with other issues—caring is not enough.
Feeling for the survivors will not address the problems.
We need to understand the causes; resource the people who know how to keep women safe; and tackle the causes through education, provision and legislative action.
There is an added dimension to the debate on forced marriage—the fear of causing some kind of cultural offence.
However, as one young Asian Scot said to me, any right-thinking person must believe that it is absolutely unacceptable to force someone into marriage. [Interruption.]
Even if it happens to only one person, that is one too many.
We welcome the consultation, because it is critical to get it right—to act to protect and support women, but without the unintended consequence of forced marriage being driven underground.
However, we hope that whatever action is taken will be kept under close examination, to ensure that it is having the desired effect.
We must not close the door on any options, and we must ensure that protection is afforded to people facing the problem across the whole United Kingdom.
It is essential to have a proper understanding of the pressures on young people who may be forced into marriage—to know how difficult it is to resist forced marriage and how isolated and vulnerable a person can feel.
There is an irony in the fact that young people are sometimes forced into marriage precisely because they are challenging the roles that are expected of them.
In any provision that we make, we must understand the need to protect the individual and give them both the confidence that they will continue to be protected and the knowledge that, if they have the courage to resist, we will support them in doing that.
We must be able to offer safety, advice, the time that is needed and support in the future.
Young people in such situations need trusted intermediaries—people who understand the families' cultural and community sensitivities and who are able to rebut and resist some of the arguments that are put to the young people.
I ask the minister to reflect on how we can consult the most powerful voices—the voices of those who can talk to their own experience, which are often silenced because they do not have the confidence to come forward.
He may wish to think further about how private consultation can be undertaken with some of those who have survived and are living with their experiences.
There is also the question of education in communities that still believe that forced marriage is reasonable.
It is not an issue of religious belief; it is something that can be challenged inside communities.
People can be supported to do that important work.
There is an issue with resources.
Scottish Women's Aid's analysis of single outcome agreements shows that only seven local authorities make any mention of domestic abuse or violence against women as a local outcome.
What reassurance can the minister give that he will act to prevent those issues from being de-prioritised at a local level?
I am not sure whether he is consulting COSLA on that analysis, and I do not think that he is consulting community planning partnerships.
That might be a useful starting point for some of the discussions around the resource implications and the education and support side as well as around the broader legal matters.
When will the advice on equality impact assessments and equality responsibilities in relation to single outcome agreements be issued?
We were promised that advice, but it has not yet appeared.
What has been the role of the national group on violence against women in shaping the consultation?
The group is a powerful forum for such discussions, but I do not know whether it has discussed the issue, and if so when, or whether it plans to discuss it.
That information would be useful to us in forming our view of the consultation. [Interruption.]
What is the group's role in assessing, monitoring and considering the implications of single outcome agreements?
I welcome the debate and recognise the progress that has been made.
I welcome the consultation although, as ever, I regret that it is necessary.
Finally, I congratulate all those in the Parliament and far beyond who ensure that the issues facing survivors of domestic abuse and violence against women and those who are coping with forced marriages are kept in the public eye so that action can be taken.
I urge the minister to sustain the focus on all fronts.
6.10.08
Download Johann's widget for her latest update
Download Johann's widget (left) and get her latest brought straight to your Facebook account/iGoogleaccount/blog/website.
Visit the link below, click on "Get Widget" and follow the short and straightforward instructions to install :
http://www.widgetbox.com/widget/johann-lamont-msp
28.9.08
Scottish Government's programme Speech in the Scottish Parliament 3 September 2008
I will comment on the Government's programme from the perspective of my party's commitment to our central purpose when we were in power, which was economic growth and social justice.
We regard the two as being absolutely inseparable but, during the summer, the First Minister confirmed his view that it is possible to separate economic policy from its social consequences—that we can somehow separate pit closures from the devastation in mining communities.
The great fear is that because the Government's overarching commitment is to only one priority—sustainable economic growth—it may abdicate its responsibility on social justice or naively presume that social good will inevitably emerge from economic activity, when we know that that cannot be the case.
I am concerned that there appears to be no reference to tackling gender, race or disability inequality and no mention of community regeneration and the deep-rooted inequalities in some communities.
We all know that no advance in equality ever happened by accident, and that it is absolutely critical to scrutinise spend with proper understanding and to use evidence about whom it benefits.
I seek reassurance that the SNP will learn the lessons of its first year in power and equality proof its budget and reflect on its decision to accept single outcome agreements without any evidence of equality impact assessments.
I recently met representatives of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to discuss that very issue.
They were obviously concerned, but they told me that the explanation is that the timetable is too tight to expect local authorities to fulfil that responsibility.
That seems to be a perverse argument, given that the Government established the timetable.
I am gravely concerned that the single outcome agreements, which will determine so much in addressing inequality, will not undergo that impact assessment.
The proposed abolition of council tax makes my case.
It is evident that an equality impact assessment of the proposal would confirm that it would not affect the most disadvantaged people because they do not pay council tax, and that those people would suffer disproportionately as a result of the cuts in services that would necessarily follow as a consequence of the largest tax cut, which was so proudly vaunted earlier.
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): Will the member give way?
Johann Lamont: Let me finish this point.
SNP members can argue for council tax abolition if they wish, but it is unacceptable to assert that it would address inequality, when it would not.
Bill Wilson: I find it remarkable that Johann Lamont seems to be saying that people on low incomes who may be in poverty do not pay council tax.
Johann Lamont: If the member had listened carefully, he would know that I said that "the most disadvantaged people" do not pay council tax.
It is claimed that abolition of the council tax would meet the needs of the most disadvantaged people.
SNP members can support abolition if they will, but they should not use the poor to defend the policy.
There are serious issues in housing for whoever is in power.
I was determined not to be provoked by the response of the Scottish Government to the announcements by the UK Government.
I was depressed, however, by the line that was taken, which was, "They have copied us."
Even if that were true, which it is not, it is hardly an adequate response to the serious issues that we all face.
The £100 million that has been committed by the Government has been welcomed.
I welcomed it because I asked the Government to release it, but all through the summer it refused to do so, then it did so through pressure.
There are hard questions around that £100 million.
The housing minister confirmed that £40 million of it has not yet been agreed.
The Government has to understand the consequences of the anxiety that that creates.
I do not have time to go into all the housing issues, but I urge the Government to listen—if not to me, then to the housing sector, which says that the Government's core approach is damaging.
If the Government has the stature to reverse its decision in "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland", it will have our support.
I return in my last minute to social justice.
The minister might wish to reflect on the article in Third Force News that highlights the anxieties of the voluntary sector about what is happening to the fairer Scotland fund, which has, of course, been cut.
The sector says that it is being squeezed out of the social inclusion process.
We all know how important that process is to housing in particular.
I urge the Scottish Government not just to assert its commitment to equality and social justice, but to show its seriousness, if not in response to me then to the serious people in the sector.
Its budget decisions and programme for government should show that, unlike the First Minister, it understands the absolute centrality of economic and social factors in determining Government action.
We regard the two as being absolutely inseparable but, during the summer, the First Minister confirmed his view that it is possible to separate economic policy from its social consequences—that we can somehow separate pit closures from the devastation in mining communities.
The great fear is that because the Government's overarching commitment is to only one priority—sustainable economic growth—it may abdicate its responsibility on social justice or naively presume that social good will inevitably emerge from economic activity, when we know that that cannot be the case.
I am concerned that there appears to be no reference to tackling gender, race or disability inequality and no mention of community regeneration and the deep-rooted inequalities in some communities.
We all know that no advance in equality ever happened by accident, and that it is absolutely critical to scrutinise spend with proper understanding and to use evidence about whom it benefits.
I seek reassurance that the SNP will learn the lessons of its first year in power and equality proof its budget and reflect on its decision to accept single outcome agreements without any evidence of equality impact assessments.
I recently met representatives of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to discuss that very issue.
They were obviously concerned, but they told me that the explanation is that the timetable is too tight to expect local authorities to fulfil that responsibility.
That seems to be a perverse argument, given that the Government established the timetable.
I am gravely concerned that the single outcome agreements, which will determine so much in addressing inequality, will not undergo that impact assessment.
The proposed abolition of council tax makes my case.
It is evident that an equality impact assessment of the proposal would confirm that it would not affect the most disadvantaged people because they do not pay council tax, and that those people would suffer disproportionately as a result of the cuts in services that would necessarily follow as a consequence of the largest tax cut, which was so proudly vaunted earlier.
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): Will the member give way?
Johann Lamont: Let me finish this point.
SNP members can argue for council tax abolition if they wish, but it is unacceptable to assert that it would address inequality, when it would not.
Bill Wilson: I find it remarkable that Johann Lamont seems to be saying that people on low incomes who may be in poverty do not pay council tax.
Johann Lamont: If the member had listened carefully, he would know that I said that "the most disadvantaged people" do not pay council tax.
It is claimed that abolition of the council tax would meet the needs of the most disadvantaged people.
SNP members can support abolition if they will, but they should not use the poor to defend the policy.
There are serious issues in housing for whoever is in power.
I was determined not to be provoked by the response of the Scottish Government to the announcements by the UK Government.
I was depressed, however, by the line that was taken, which was, "They have copied us."
Even if that were true, which it is not, it is hardly an adequate response to the serious issues that we all face.
The £100 million that has been committed by the Government has been welcomed.
I welcomed it because I asked the Government to release it, but all through the summer it refused to do so, then it did so through pressure.
There are hard questions around that £100 million.
The housing minister confirmed that £40 million of it has not yet been agreed.
The Government has to understand the consequences of the anxiety that that creates.
I do not have time to go into all the housing issues, but I urge the Government to listen—if not to me, then to the housing sector, which says that the Government's core approach is damaging.
If the Government has the stature to reverse its decision in "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland", it will have our support.
I return in my last minute to social justice.
The minister might wish to reflect on the article in Third Force News that highlights the anxieties of the voluntary sector about what is happening to the fairer Scotland fund, which has, of course, been cut.
The sector says that it is being squeezed out of the social inclusion process.
We all know how important that process is to housing in particular.
I urge the Scottish Government not just to assert its commitment to equality and social justice, but to show its seriousness, if not in response to me then to the serious people in the sector.
Its budget decisions and programme for government should show that, unlike the First Minister, it understands the absolute centrality of economic and social factors in determining Government action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)