Official Report 755KB pdf
The next item on our agenda is the Scottish Government’s proposed national outcomes, which will form part of the national performance framework. I welcome to the meeting Kate Forbes, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic, who is joining us remotely from Shetland. The cabinet secretary is accompanied by Scottish Government officials Keith McDonald, who is unit head in the strategy division, and Katie Allison, who is analytical unit head in the central analysis division. I welcome you all to the meeting and invite the Deputy First Minister to make a short opening statement.
I am delighted to be with you on quite a stormy day in Shetland—here is hoping that I get home at some point this week. It is very good of you to allow me to join in this flexible way; it is a bit of déjà vu to Covid.
As the committee will know, the national performance framework was introduced in 2007. Since then, it has evolved into a wellbeing framework with shared national outcomes for all of Scotland. The best way to sum up the national outcomes is to say that they paint a picture of the kind of Scotland that we hopefully all aspire to be.
I know that some of the stakeholder views that were submitted to the inquiry suggest that we can improve and lead with a stronger, more impactful framework. I am quite encouraged by that kind of feedback, because it demonstrates the NPF’s value as a means for all of Scotland’s actors and agencies to debate and to challenge the collective progress that we are making as a nation. We all have a role in helping to deliver the national outcomes, because the NPF is not just owned by Government but belongs to the whole of Scotland.
Our review, which I know that you will scrutinise today, has proposed changes, which include the introduction of new outcomes on care, climate change and housing. It was good to see the SPICe analysis of the inquiry’s call for views, which said that
“the responses ... reflect strong support for the proposed outcomes of the NPF, with ... recommendations to enhance their effectiveness and inclusivity.”
Overall, the review is proposing an increase in the number of national outcomes from 11 to 13. I appreciate that the inquiry has heard that fewer outcomes, such as in the Welsh Government’s approach, would lead to greater impact, alignment and so on, and it would be good to perhaps discuss that over the course of this morning.
We have also proposed that the purpose of the NPF is updated to:
“To improve the wellbeing of people living in Scotland now and in the future”.
That represents a mainstreamed purpose. The SPICe analysis was, again, encouraging, as it said that that change “had garnered significant support”. I can assure the committee that the wellbeing economy—which is part of the wording of the current purpose—is a priority for the Government and will continue to be guided by the national outcomes in that area.
We have confirmed that we will consult and collaborate with stakeholders and partners on our plans for improved implementation and guidance to ensure that the NPF is consistently and effectively applied right across Scotland. That was recommended by your committee in 2022, and I note that evidence to the inquiry further supports that recommendation. We will include a refreshed set of national indicators, which will be launched alongside the new national outcomes in 2025.
The national outcomes “seek to promote equality.” The evidence that was gathered throughout the Government’s review was used to better understand the interests of equality groups, and those interests have been reflected in the proposals. It is important that the inquiry examines that area.
I consider the NPF to be a really important part of how we do government: it helps us work together as a nation and achieve our national outcomes to improve the quality of life for the people of Scotland. It is used in the Government, but in my role as a Deputy First Minister, I will look to ensure that that is being done well, so that we can demonstrate the leadership, stewardship and facilitation role that is expected of us in the Government.
I know that you have heard disappointment regarding the implicit rather than explicit inclusion of the national outcomes in the recently published programme for government. I can assure you that the First Minister’s four priorities are very closely aligned with, and guided by, the national outcomes. I challenge anyone to see a way in which the four priorities are not backed up by the national outcomes. I agree that we need to have a visible leadership role in ensuring that the NPF is adopted across Scotland.
As the committee might know, we will not be introducing a wellbeing and sustainable development bill at this time. We have committed to work across the chamber with Sarah Boyack as her proposed member’s bill develops; I am due to meet her on 9 October so that we can discuss how we work together.
Progress towards the national outcomes is, of course, a proxy for progress towards the United Nations sustainable development goals, because of the close alignment between them. The NPF and the SDGs capture the ambition of creating a better world and recognise up front the challenges that are involved in doing that. They set the deadline for a specific set of local and global improvements for 2030, and I want us to tell a good story about Scotland’s contribution and experience when we reach that milestone.
Thank you, convener, and thanks to the committee and all the stakeholders who have submitted their views to our statutory review and your committee’s inquiry. I am very happy to answer your questions.
Thank you very much for that, Deputy First Minister. I appreciate your opening statement.
To go back to the beginning of the Scottish Government’s consultation process, you will be aware that a number of our witnesses raised the concern that the consultation was not ambitious enough and that awareness of the NPF has diminished because of the lack of ambition in the consultation. Some of the witnesses took the view that, if the consultation process is weak, the NPF is not being given the priority within the Government that it should be given. In fact, that seems to have been the case across a lot of the evidence that we took.
Way back in 2007, the NPF seemed to be almost revolutionary and quite dynamic in Scotland, but it seems to have lost a bit of its importance, as far as perceptions of it go. As John Mason pointed out to the finance secretary, it was not mentioned in the programme for government. One wonders just how much the framework underpins Government activity.
Let me answer that in two parts: first, on the way in which the NPF underpins Government activity, and secondly, on the point about the consultation.
I get very nervous when we fixate on the visibility of something to the detriment of understanding how embedded it is in changing things. You are right that, when the NPF was first launched, there would have been much excitement, as there is with anything new. There is a great danger and tendency among politicians to look for the next new thing, whereas, actually, if you work hard at delivering what you have already said that you will deliver, you are more likely to deliver change. Therefore, I would be very reluctant to take on board any criticism stating that we need to do more new things rather than committing to deliver what we started in 2007, which was, in essence, aligned with the sustainable development goals. We should be pushed harder on how much progress we have made against the commitments that were made in 2007 rather than, in 2024, trying to come up with new shiny things that might distract from the original delivery.
I am not saying that it should be about new things. I think that people are saying that they are concerned that the Scottish Government is paying lip service to the national performance framework, that it is not embedded in what the Government does and that it is not clear, for example, how Government spending or, indeed, priorities align with it.
The fact that the consultation was not all singing and all dancing, as many of the witnesses said that it should have been, and that it was fairly limited in scope made witnesses think that the Scottish Government is not serious about it—it is almost a tick-box exercise. That is a major criticism of where we are at this time.
There was an expression of disappointment among many people who are committed to the national performance framework that they feel that the Government is not as committed as perhaps some of our stakeholders are.
Let me take on board the first half of your question, which was on how committed we are. I will come on to that.
I challenge again the idea that the consultation should have been broader—in other words, about our doing more things. That is what sits uncomfortably with me. We should have a streamlined and focused approach, which is ultimately much easier to embed and much easier to measure. The proposed revisions that we have made will enable us to streamline and focus the work that we are doing.
11:30On the consultation itself, we have made changes where there was a strong evidence base of the need for change. We have introduced new outcomes—you will know that there are new outcomes on care, housing and climate—in areas where we had significant support to make changes. On the flipside, some stakeholders have cautioned against increasing the total number of outcomes, which goes back to my point about having a streamlined and focused approach.
You asked at the beginning about the extent to which the NPF is embedded in the Government. In any sort of political cycle, in the tidal waves of politics coming and going, there will always be pressure to lift our eyes off the outcomes that we have set out in the national performance framework. During my time in government I have seen an increasing awareness of the national performance framework and an increasing desire to align our policy work with it.
That has been most visible in finance and is most visible when it comes to the budget. It has meant that there has been very stark conversations about where the national performance framework outcomes clash with one another, because at times they do. At times Government, and indeed Parliament, has to make a conscious choice about what it is going to focus on, and sometimes you see that.
I just talked about two new outcomes on housing and climate. I am in Shetland, so I will use this example. I was told yesterday that the council here has a choice to make. Should it decarbonise the houses that it already has with the money that it has, or should it build more houses? Let us not pretend that all these decisions are easy, and let us not pretend that there are not still further questions to answer when it comes to embedding all the national performance framework in our policy work, because I do not think anyone would disagree with the picture that we are painting with the national performance framework. We would all like to live in a Scotland where all those outcomes are met, but the business of Government requires us to start with those outcomes and then figure out the most effective way of delivering them through policy.
You talked about the importance of the national performance framework with regard to finance, but it is not seen as explicitly or transparently driving financial decisions by Government, nor is it seen as holding organisations to account for spending funding effectively.
As I am no longer finance secretary, perhaps I could talk about my own portfolio area of the economy. Our economy work all goes back to the national performance framework. That is clearly and starkly included in the decision making that we go through. The First Minister has, in essence, picked four top priorities, one of which is economic growth, but that growth has to be achieved in the spirit of the wellbeing economy. We are not pursuing economic growth to the neglect of all the other outcomes, and that is quite visible in the decisions that we are making.
I will take one of the bills that is included in the programme for government this year as an example—the community wealth building bill. The point is that we are not pursuing economic growth and prosperity as an end in itself; it all has to be part of delivering the national performance framework outcomes, including those on sustainability, the environment, delivering more housing and supporting communities and their health and wellbeing. That is an example where the NPF is embedded in our economy work.
Okay, but economic growth is obviously important if we are going to provide the resources to do all that the Parliament wishes to do and, indeed, the Government wishes to do. There are concerns regarding the omission of explicit references to economic growth. For example, that led Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, which responded to the consultation, to say that it feels as if the Government has “downgraded” economic growth, which is exactly the opposite of the message that we want to convey, given that it is one of the four priorities, as you have already touched on.
To my mind, economic growth it is not an end in itself. The end is the outcomes that are captured in the national performance framework. When we talk about economic growth, that is about making Scotland more prosperous and fairer, and it is a means of delivering against our environmental ambitions. It is a means to an end.
I would be reluctant to embed economic growth as a national outcome in and of itself, as that would be confusing means and ends. We do not celebrate economic growth as an end in itself. I want to live in communities where there is fairness, where everybody is paid a fair wage, where there is no fuel poverty, where there are better health outcomes and so on. I could go through the whole list, but I will not.
That is what the UN sustainable development goals are about—ensuring that there is fairness and equality across the board. I would far rather that that fairness was a result of people having high-level incomes, and that is where we need more economic growth. However, that is not an end in itself; it is a means to the ends that are captured in the national performance framework.
Okay, but the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce has suggested that
“removing the reference to the economy risks losing the focus on something that is a critical enabler of people’s wellbeing.”
You have mentioned wellbeing on a number of occasions. Many of those who responded to the consultation suggested that the framework should be renamed to something somewhat less tedious and boring than the national performance framework to, for example, “Scotland’s wellbeing framework” or even “Ambitions for Scotland”—that is, to something that is a bit more dynamic.
I know that the national performance framework has been the title since 2007, but it has hardly caught fire with the public. In fact, it is very similar to the national planning framework—it even has the same acronym. Why has the Government decided not to call it “Scotland’s wellbeing framework”, given that that is clearly the direction of travel from almost everything that you have said so far?
The general theme of all my comments this morning is that I am not minded to make changes for their own sake. I will make changes that mean that we are better at delivering the national outcomes. To my mind, changing names does not help anybody, so changing the name of the framework, as has been requested, would not be one of my top priorities.
We have got strong branding around the framework, which has been built up since 2007. It is a key part of some of our international work. The engagement that we have had with other Governments, in terms of how we have developed the national performance framework and how we use it for policy work, is aligned with the name as it stands. If I thought that changing the name would deliver more fairness to somebody in the country, I would be more persuaded, but I am not.
You also touched on the UN sustainable development goals. Goal 1 is “No poverty”. It was unclear whether the national outcome seeks to reduce poverty because, in Scotland’s NPF, the national outcomes are more realistic about what will be achieved within a devolved setting. Is that the case?
I do not quite follow that question. Could you just clarify what you mean?
One of the UN’s sustainable development goals is that there should be no poverty, whereas the Scottish Government’s aim is to reduce poverty. Is that because we cannot eliminate poverty within a devolved setting? Is that the reason for it, or is there another reason why the Scottish Government does not have the same goal as the UN?
This work started back in 2022, when the first initial review started. Since May, the First Minister has been very explicit that he seeks to eliminate child poverty in Scotland. We are seeking to be as ambitious as possible when it comes to our poverty work.
The committee’s point of feedback about verbalising—with regard to “eliminate” versus “reduce”—might be quite useful. The First Minister has been very clear about our ambitions to—I think that he uses this term—eradicate child poverty. In any case, that is something that I am open to reconsidering.
I find it difficult to comprehend how, as a sub-state legislature, we could eradicate child poverty or poverty in general with the powers that we have, which are limited—let us be honest about it—and could be changed at a moment’s notice by the UK Government. How realistic are those ambitions in the national performance framework?
At the moment, the terminology that is used is about reducing poverty. The aim is that every agency and actor in Scotland sees that as one of their priorities and understands that the way in which they do their work must deliver a reduction in poverty. That is where I think the national performance framework works quite effectively.
I do not want to keep using examples from these wonderful islands of Shetland, but you have a situation here where major energy giants could be seen to be operating quite effectively if your sole purpose is the transition to net zero and the climate or economic prosperity. However, it is also the case that upwards of 30 per cent of people are in fuel poverty here. The framework is a means by which a local authority or national Government can hold major companies to account and say, “In Scotland, we have an ambition of reducing poverty—that is one of our key outcomes—so how you do your work matters just as much as the work you’re doing in terms of climate and prosperity.” There are big opportunities to do that. I was struck by the fact that a community wind farm has done more on reinvesting and reducing poverty in these islands than some of the major corporations have done.
That is perhaps a visible example of how the framework has to be a genuinely national piece of work, and not just a way in which Governments are held to account.
Thank you. I will open up the session to colleagues round the table.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. The updates to the framework are perfectly reasonable, but I share the scepticism that was inherent in the convener’s opening question about the extent to which making the changes will actually change the outcomes that we are all looking for. Last week, when I visited the University of the West of Scotland, before I had even asked, the people there were able to evidence how they based their strategic plan around the national performance framework and how they align with it. Those people were better able to evidence that than the Scottish Government is.
I am struggling to decide whether there is a challenge for the Government because it cannot evidence the work that it is doing, or whether the situation is actually worse than that and the NPF is simply not being taken into account. Do you understand that, if the Scottish Government cannot evidence its alignment with its performance framework, when other organisations have taken up that challenge, that presents quite profound questions?
I will answer that in a couple of ways, and then the officials might want to come in. I can speak to how we embed the framework in policy work, but I think that you are talking about the visible measurement and reporting to Parliament of the work that we do. A key part of the review process has been consideration of what we can do on reporting. For example, the chief statistician has been heavily involved in the review and in considering how he can support the work through working with the Office for National Statistics and looking at wellbeing measures and so on, so that we are able to quantify the position. I can give you lots of qualitative evidence on what we do, but I think that you are looking for us to quantify the work and show what has changed that would not have changed if we had not embedded the national performance framework.
I do not know if—
I am sorry to cut in, cabinet secretary—it is a bit of both. It is exactly what you say about quantifying evidence of the outcomes, but it is also about being able to evidence that that was the Government’s intention in the first place.
Last week or a couple of weeks ago, we had a witness who rhymed off the last half dozen of the Government’s major strategy documents across a range of portfolios. I will leave the PFG aside for the moment and come back to it. If I am getting this right, I think that four of the six documents made no reference to the national performance framework, and the other two made passing reference, but there was nothing specific about individual outcomes. Do you recognise the challenge there? How has it come about that the Government, which is, as you say, committed to the national performance framework, is consistently publishing high-level, significant documents to outline its strategy, but those documents do not reference the NPF? That is a problem, is it not?
11:45
We will definitely take that on board. Again, that goes back to visibility and to the point that I made to the convener at the beginning about confusing visibility for practice. Parliament needs to be sighted on how we are doing things and what we are doing.
This is a key part of our implementation plan for the framework. Once we are all agreed and once we have received the committee’s report and feedback on whether the substance is right, the next hurdle is implementation and embedding the framework. As part of that, we need to consider better reporting and accountability. I am open to discussions about how we embed greater levels of accountability in the process. If it is as simple as every strategy having to illustrate how it aligns with the national performance framework, we could consider that, or whether there are other ways of doing it.
I do not know who to put this to, but I wonder whether any of my officials want to come in on reporting, accountability and implementation. They should not all rush at once.
I think that Keith McDonald is looking to come in.
I apologise—I was trying to unmute my microphone.
I was just going to make the point that the DFM has just made. It is safe to say that you will find the national performance framework mentioned across Government-published strategy, but the point that is coming through is that that is not consistent across all of it, as the DFM just said. I know that the committee will be talking about the implementation plan in a minute, but we can definitely look at the issue as we look to implement the framework better next year, to make sure that the NPF is as consistent as it should be across all Government-published policy and strategy. I hope that that is helpful.
Thanks very much. I will return to the PFG, which the cabinet secretary presented a pretty rosy picture of. You argued that the inclusion is implicit rather than explicit, and you seemed to indicate that that was a deliberate choice. You made the point that the First Minister’s four priorities match the outcomes in the NPF and of course they do, because they are all very agreeable. The only reason why somebody would disagree is if they were a climate science denier; beyond that, it is all agreeable stuff.
However, it was a significant omission that the single most important document in the Government did not refer to the framework that the Government uses to measure whether it is building the kind of society that it wants. Would it not be easier to come here and say that that was an oversight and that it will not happen again?
I could do, but I am reluctant to go down that route, because the whole point of the PFG was to be short, punchy and clear. Since the PFG was published, there has been lots of criticism about particular sectors and strategies being omitted—I think that there was criticism that we did not explicitly say that we were going to work with Sarah Boyack on her bill, for example. If we had included all the omissions, by the time we had gone through them, we would have lost the short and punchy document.
A line at the top saying that the Government abides by the national performance framework could have been included, but I do not think that it would have made any difference to whether the Government delivers on the aims that are in the programme for government. I am very much of the view that the committee should hold me to account on whether we are meeting the outcomes, rather than on whether we are using the right language in things such as programmes for government.
I do not disagree with you at all that the outcomes are what is important in this context and that that is primarily what the Government is held to account for. Nevertheless, do you recognise that there is also a leadership role for the Government here? The Government does not expect the NPF to be used only by the Government directly and public bodies more widely. The Government expects everybody—the whole of society and the whole economy, including business and so on—to embrace the national performance framework, so the Government itself should visibly embrace it. Otherwise, it is hard to see how the leadership role is being performed.
I agree with you on that. You are right that we have a visible leadership approach and that we need to have a visible leadership role when it comes to ensuring that the national performance framework is adopted across Scotland.
I go back to my example of the big energy company. If we are holding that company to account and it turns round to us and says, “Well, how are you doing it?”, we need to be able to point pretty quickly to the ways in which we are doing it. You are right on that front, and that requires an explicit element of rhetoric and visibility in certain documents.
I think that there is a big challenge. I note that Carnegie UK, in evidence to the committee, said:
“aligning budgets with national outcomes is not straightforward, and lots of countries ... are wrestling with it.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 17 September 2024; c 41.]
I think that Scotland, too, is wrestling with how we explicitly link what we choose to do—in a very political environment—with a document such as the national performance framework. Nobody disagrees with the outcomes that are outlined in the framework, and we are all trying to do the work that shifts the dial on those outcomes.
Thank you. That is all from me.
I will build on what the previous two questioners asked.
From listening to the evidence, I think that one issue seems to be that the national performance framework is so general. We are going up from 11 to 13 outcomes and, as you said, cabinet secretary, there can be clashes between different outcomes. I wonder whether that is part of the problem.
Does the national performance framework help us in making day-to-day decisions? I asked Shona Robison a similar question in the previous evidence session. If we have a limited capital budget and if we have to choose between roads and houses, or anything else, does the national performance framework help us to make that kind of decision? Alternatively, is it just a question of saying, “Houses are good, roads are good—so whatever”?
The national performance framework is designed to enjoy as much consensus as possible. If we want it to be something that is owned nationally, we have to maximise consensus so that people cannot disagree with it. Except for climate change deniers, for example—to go back to Ross Greer’s point—people do not disagree with it.
The national performance framework is a vision that we want to deliver now and for generations to come, but it sets out the end destination that we want to get to, and it cannot replace the political day-to-day decision making that is required. For example, the committee has just heard the finance secretary talking about winter fuel payments. With regard to the choices in and around that, we want to reduce poverty, but there are a number of different ways to do that. There is the Scottish child payment, and there is building good, affordable homes.
John Mason mentioned roads; in rural areas, roads are part of reducing poverty, because if people cannot get to work or if it costs them a fortune to get to healthcare facilities, that exacerbates poverty. Fuel bills in rural areas are a massive driver of poverty, and that is linked to transport.
The national performance framework sets out, and reminds us constantly of, what we want Scotland to be. However, we still have to take the difficult choices, which can sometimes be between good and better, not good and bad.
This may also be an opportunity to say something about the work to support policy officials who give the Government advice. Policy officials are trained on the national performance framework, and it is promoted to the policy advisers who are tasked with the job of giving ministers advice about what to do or what not to do.
More recently, as of May, the First Minister has been really clear that he wants there to be a focus on strategy and delivery. A bit of restructuring has been going on. People in the strategy directorate and the performance, delivery and resilience directorate are tasked with ensuring that we meet our aims, and they now own the national performance framework. In all the work that they do internally on monitoring delivery and strategy, they must be cognisant of the national performance framework, which provides the ultimate direction of travel.
“Cognisant” is an interesting word. There is also the phrase “having regard to”. Some people feel that those phrases are too weak and that we should really have something that is a bit stronger. It has also been said that, so far, the approach has been more carrot than stick. Should we have a bit more stick or apply a bit more pressure on people?
There is definitely a lot more stick with the work that John Swinney, as the First Minister, has done in government during the early months of his tenure. I talked about restructuring. Under his leadership, the delivery function has been reformed so that delivery is measured and so that we ensure that we do what we say we are going to do. That is why this year’s programme for government is a lot punchier, because it is a lot easier to monitor progress against fewer hard-hitting actions than it is to do that against lots of nice actions that no one could disagree with.
The programme for government has a tight focus primarily because John Swinney places such weight on monitoring delivery—he has tasked a team in the Government with focusing almost entirely on delivery. The same team owns the national performance framework. The rigidity around measuring progress will also be applied to how our actions compare with the ambitions that have been set out in the national performance framework.
If monitoring or measuring progress is important, is it a problem that so many organisations and parts of the Government and the public sector are responsible for it? Does that make it difficult to pin down who has delivered and who has not delivered, whether that is in the Government, local government or the NHS?
That tension is inherent in any document that is owned by all of Scotland. There is no way that only the Government can achieve any of the aims that are set out in the national performance framework; that would be the case only in a structure that was not a democracy. In a democracy, there is agency and many different public sector organisations have responsibility, as well as private sector organisations, which we always seem to forget.
I will give you a small example. The more that fair work principles are embedded in private sector organisations, the more likely it will be that people are paid a fair wage and that their wellbeing is considered, and the more likely it will be that we reduce poverty. That is a responsibility for the private sector. In a document such as the national performance framework, which is widely owned, it is inherent that there will be tensions. That is why I am open to the committee’s views on accountability and implementation. If too narrow an approach is taken that does not hold all of Scotland responsible for achieving the aims, we may miss the point of the national performance framework being a national document.
12:00
Good morning, cabinet secretary. First, I have a quick observation, rather than a question. In the consultation, the concerns that were raised were not about doing more things; it was the way in which the exercise was carried out as a research piece that brought criticism and led to the belief that it was a tick-box exercise.
Moving on, I want to pick up the convener’s comment about the references to “economic growth” being omitted. I have heard your responses to that, cabinet secretary, but I would just add an additional concern. It is my perception that, over the past few years, there has been a lack of clear long-term thinking. We have called this year’s budget scrutiny “A Strategic Approach”, and issues that we hear about often include the lack of multiyear funding and growing the tax base to fund things. Those are long-term endeavours that require a resilient economy. Therefore, when it comes to dropping the term
“sustainable and inclusive economic growth”,
I think that we need to focus for a minute on the “sustainable” part of that.
I would appreciate some comments about that, having heard what the cabinet secretary has said about not having economic growth for its own sake.
Stop me if I am getting this wrong, but I assume that you are specifically referring not just to the creation of the wellbeing economy and fair work outcome, but to the overarching purpose of the national performance framework.
Yes.
Those are the two areas where there has been a change in wording. Obviously, there are reasons for those changes, so perhaps I can go through both and then summarise what we can do next.
The wellbeing economy and fair work outcome was created by bringing together and trying to streamline the previous economy and fair work and business outcomes and, in doing so, was trying to capture the fact that they are very interconnected. Again, it was done in the spirit of not having multiple competing outcomes and instead bringing them together. Indeed, SPICe suggested that bringing those things together created a more balanced and inclusive approach to economic development. However, how we word the national performance framework is important, as is my point about economic growth being a means to an end. Those are the reasons that were given for that change.
The reason for changing the overarching purpose was, again, to try to bring it up to date. I do not know what the committee thinks, but the last one was, I think, quite unwieldy in talking about a
“focus on creating a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increased wellbeing, and sustainable and inclusive economic growth”.
We have updated that, and the proposed purpose is:
“To improve the wellbeing of people living in Scotland now and in the future”.
That just feels a lot tighter and cleaner.
However, if sufficient concern has been expressed about the absence of any explicit reference to economic growth, I will be very open to what the committee’s report states. That report will be very important, and we will take it on board. If the committee thinks that the change is sufficiently concerning, I am open to that view, but I am reluctant to ignore the fact that economic growth is a means to an end. If you achieve it as an end while neglecting everything else that it is designed to achieve, you will have failed to actually get the spirit and the letter of the UN sustainable development goals.
You have made that last point very clearly and, indeed, have made it previously.
Just to finish off this conversation, I have a point about the term “inclusive”. I notice that the equality impact assessment called for consideration of a more gendered national performance framework. The official line from the Scottish Government is that it proposes to mainstream gender more effectively, but it is not yet
“possible to take an intersectional approach”.
I would like your comments on that because, for me, that feeds into some of my concerns with regard to the term “inclusive economic growth”. After all, we know that there is a continuing issue over whether women are getting a top seat at every level of the economic table. I would therefore like to hear your reflections on the EIA and where we are with addressing some of these issues.
That concern has come through. My officials might want to come in on the background. I am conscious that much of the consultation work happened before I was in office, so I am perhaps not as close to the conversations that happened during that period. If my officials would like to come in on the mainstreaming aspect, I ask them to do so.
A number of stakeholders recommended that equalities and human rights be more explicitly integrated in national accounts, with a particular focus on intersectionality and gender mainstreaming. We have therefore focused far more explicitly on gender. For example, we have done that in the new care outcome, because we know that more women are involved in the business of delivering care. We have accepted the recommendation of the national advisory council on women and girls that we carry out a thematic gender review of the national performance framework. The themes that came through are reflected in the proposed revisions to the outcomes. There has been a lot of work to ensure that there is a more gendered approach to the national performance framework.
I wonder whether my officials want to answer the specific point about mainstreaming. There will always be a tension on explicit outcomes versus mainstreaming. Keith McDonald might want to come back in.
Before your officials come in, I will build on that point a little. The root of the issue still lies with data collectors, in that we do not routinely collect disaggregated data. Indeed, in its response to the consultation, Engender noted the lack of such data.
When your officials come in, or when you give your final comments, I will be interested to hear where we are on ensuring that all data is representative and can be sliced and diced as appropriate. I realise that that is not always possible, but we should do so wherever we can. However, we are still not yet at the point where it is done routinely.
I think that Keith McDonald wants to come in. [Interruption.]
Keith?
Hello. Earth calling Keith.
Sorry—we have no sign of Keith coming in.
Ground control to Major Tom.
Sorry—it is my colleague Katie Allison who is trying to come in. We apologise but, because we are joining by browser, when we try to unmute, there is a long delay. I do not know whether you are managing to hear us.
No problem.
While Katie is trying to unmute, I will address your point about data. I echo the DFM’s point that we have conducted equality impact assessments, which have been laid out, and they are represented in our updated proposals. We will need to return to those assessments at a level pending the recommendations of this inquiry, to support the refreshed set next year. That is just a technical detail, which might be helpful.
I will see whether Katie wants to press the button again. Our apologies for this.
There we go. It should be working now. I think that I was unmuted earlier but, unfortunately, because Keith is sitting across the table from me, my audio was being interrupted.
The Deputy First Minister mentioned the thematic gender review. I just wanted to say that we will publish that review on the national performance framework website for consideration within the parliamentary review.
We have also discussed data quality. As the committee will probably be aware, the NPF does not collect data directly; rather, it utilises data collections, surveys and administrative data from across the Scottish Government. That is to take advantage of the rich data that Scotland already has to offer; to reduce respondent burden across the country by using existing data; and to be financially mindful of not creating additional resource and project costs where they are not needed. However, that can lead to data gaps in the indicator set where no suitable data is currently available.
As we can see, the presence of a data gap in the NPF can be used as a driver for change to evidence the need for commissioned analysis to fill that gap. Therefore, should new and relevant data collections be developed in the coming years, we would consider them for inclusion in the next review.
I hope that that answers your question, but I will be happy to come in on that point again.
It sounds as though you are adopting a very stock and sensible approach. To finish, I merely make the point that it needs a strong driving wind; otherwise, that stated position will never really change, because that is what the evidence has told us over a period of years.
When will the thematic gender review be published—on what date?
We do not have a set date, but it will be before the end of the parliamentary review. We expect it to be in the coming weeks.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Deputy First Minister. The evidence that the committee has received so far indicates that many stakeholders see the national performance framework as a way of trying to break the short-term cycle of politics in order to gain a longer-term view. Does it help in that regard?
That is a great question. I suggest that they also want it to break down silos. Those two themes seem to come through: breaking the short-term cycle, and breaking down the silos so that we have a broader view.
When it comes to the work of governing, there is the political representation of the Administration but there is also the constancy of the civil service and the advice that comes to ministers. It is my impression that the national performance framework is well understood by the civil service. Training on it is provided, and it is uppermost in the minds of advisers. When it comes to the advice that is given to ministers, therefore, the national performance framework is pretty visible. You then hold us to account as to whether ministers make the decisions that deliver change in that framework.
My view on the very narrow question that you asked is that the national performance framework outlasts political cycles. It is based on the sustainable development goals of the United Nations, which is a much bigger and better respected institution than anything that we might do.
I will be even narrower. Does the framework actually work? Last October, in reaction to the Rutherglen by-election, a council tax freeze was announced within days. We have had three years in a row of emergency budgets, with major adjustments to public spending. A plethora of reports that have come in front of the committee say that the Government does not take long-term decisions, particularly on the public finances and public service reform. Are the objectives that are set in the framework the right ones when it comes to governing those key issues? Do they help us with the core issues of making long-term decisions? That does not appear to be the case.
You cannot confuse political manifestos and the national performance framework. That point is not political; it is genuine.
Before parties get into government, they find that, in opposition, it is easy to have a big overarching aim that we all agree on, such as reducing poverty. When you get into office, however, you are tasked with how to actually do that. There are a multitude of different means. That is where the political choices come in. Some things will work, and some will not.
On the rhetorical point, which was about thinking in the longer term, I think that every party battles with thinking from election to election and trying to balance the need to make long-term decisions versus the immediate emergency of the here and now.
You described the tidal waves coming and going, and I understand the tension that is part of that. However, in a report in October last year, Audit Scotland said that the Scottish Government
“cannot afford to pay for public services in their current form.”
In August this year, it said that making
“short-term cuts to balance annual budgets without a long-term plan for reform ... risks storing up even greater problems for our communities.”
Again this year, Fraser of Allander said that
“simply delaying spending without a decision on whether to cancel it or not would simply pile on problems for the future.”
All those external and well-informed organisations do not believe that the Government is making long-term strategic decisions—it is making short-term advantageous decisions.
Should we, therefore, question whether this kind of model is effective at all? It takes a lot of resource to do the things that we are talking about, but you do not seem to be heeding any of those warnings.
12:15
I think that we are, but I note that there are two big drivers of the short-term decision making. The first is the nature of the funding. We need, once and for all, to get beyond the year-to-year annual budget setting; I am hopeful that the UK Government might help us in that. Our local authorities need it, and we in Government need it. If we could get a really decent spending review from the UK Government—I think that the review is coming next spring—that could give us long-term certainty on funding and it would be much easier to plan for the longer term.
The second driver has been the number of short-term challenges with which we have been grappling. Emerging from the Covid pandemic, which in itself was a short-term emergency shock, we have then had the cost of living emergency shock and a number of additional pressures that are driven by the inflationary environment, and which have meant that we have had to take immediate decisions.
We have the inputs, which is the funding position, and the outputs, which is the demand. If we can get an element of stability and get through the challenges, and if we can work collaboratively with the UK Government—as we are doing right now—on the longer-term points, that starts to set us up to make those decisions.
I will make another brief point. Shona Robison has had to make very difficult choices, and I know that Michael Marra has been scrutinising those decisions and holding us all to account for them. However, if we can make some of those difficult decisions now, that sets us up to be able to think about funding for the longer term on some of the biggest and most impactful changes that are required to give others longer-term stability with regard to what actually works.
I do not think that you will find any disagreement from the committee on that point. However, I have already cited a range of external observers who say that what you describe is exactly what is not happening with this Government, given its handling of public finances.
You had a go at this when you were Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, in your resource spending review: you tried to take some decisions for the longer term and to talk about a strategy. However, Shona Robison later came to the committee and said that she was ditching that policy because it was “a blunt tool”. Is that not what happens to long-term thinking under this Government?
No, because I think that we are making those decisions. That resource spending review was published in 2022, and I still stand by it; I know the amount of work that went into producing it. Nevertheless, it was published immediately prior to the emergence of double-digit levels of inflation and pay deals that mirrored the rocketing cost of living. Good grown-up Governments do not simply make plans and then stick their fingers in their ears and ignore what is happening around them. Good Governments are conscious of what is happening while sticking to the long-term ambitions of their plan.
In the past few months in particular, Shona Robison has made difficult choices to set us up for the long term, which is actually very much in the spirit of the spending review that I published in spring 2022.
So it was not “a blunt tool”.
I think that it was a really good piece of work. It was very conscious of the trade-offs that would have to be made in terms of the long-term finances, and I stood up and defended it in evidence to multiple committees.
I have one final question, on a slightly different area. It is on the point about the difference between the sustainable development goals and the national performance framework as a tool to drive performance. The framework, conceptually, is the basis on which we set outcomes and try to measure performance against them, whereas the sustainable development goals are “calls to action”, as they have been described; they essentially have funding pots set against them and positive actions that can be about aligning activity.
In contrast, what you are doing with the framework, in essence, is setting out an organising principle for the civil service, as you described it. I find that the confusion between those two operating models, in terms of the bureaucracy, might actually be part of the problem rather than the solution, because those two things—the sustainable development goals and the national performance framework—are not the same.
That is a very interesting observation. You are right to say that there is a distinction between them. We are, as it were, trying to support the delivery of the sustainable development goals, but this is a Government document—in other words, an organising document. It is trying to embed the northern star of the UN sustainable development goals in our own work and in the work that we want other agencies and actors in Scotland to do.
However, I also think that the tension that you have talked about is what makes reporting so challenging. The ultimate reporting with regard to reducing poverty, for example, is that you have reduced poverty, and the ultimate aim of the environment or climate change objectives is that you meet the climate change goals. The key is how you measure that over time to know that you are on the right track. We have the reporting on the child poverty statistics, for example. They are not national performance framework statistics; they are Government statistics, but you can use them to say whether the national performance framework is achieving its aims.
That is why it is perhaps more messy than the committee would like. It would be much easier to just measure inputs and outputs quite tightly within the remit of the national performance framework, but I think that it goes much broader than that.
Thank you.
Given that local government is technically responsible for the delivery of a lot of the national performance framework outcomes, to what extent is it easy for the Scottish Government to measure which local authorities are doing really well in their own delivery and performance?
That is an excellent question, and officials might want to come in on the role of local authorities in setting these things.
It is hard—arguably, too hard. Again, the committee will have ideas on this. Although a lot of data is collated on a local basis—we know where there are higher levels of poverty, for example—that does not mean that the effectiveness of local bodies in tackling the issue is being monitored. We know where the starting point might be too high, but often, there is a lot of focus on what national Government is doing to tackle these things, while the role of local authorities is forgotten.
By its very nature, your question echoes Michael Marra’s question, in that we must not confuse political manifestos with the national performance framework. Every local authority around the country is made up of different political colours with different views on how to achieve a particular aim. Therefore, local authority administrations that are more aligned with your party might have very strong views on how to achieve economic prosperity, and that would be an indirect route to reducing poverty. On the other hand, others will be more explicit about aims and ambitions that are directly linked to the child poverty ambition. In a dictatorship, you might be able to just say, “Here’s the national performance framework. This is how we are going to do things around the country.” That is not our style, and, indeed, I do not think any of us wants to get to that point.
No, we do not want to go down the dictatorship route.
We can do better local monitoring, but I think that this speaks to the messiness that is inherent in this kind of national document, in which we are all saying that we have a stake in achieving these aims, because we all believe in the UN sustainable development goals.
You said earlier that one of the big asks from local authorities and stakeholders was for people to think outwith silos and to be able to read across outcomes, which would be very helpful. Are there examples of local authorities that think outside the box in order to deliver better outcomes under the national performance framework? If there are such local authorities, is the Scottish Government trying to encourage their work by saying, “You’ve done very well on this because you’ve managed to put things together”?
I will give an example. I am in Shetland because I was at the convention of the Highlands and Islands yesterday. As you will know, the convention covers all our rural, coastal and island areas from North Ayrshire up to Shetland, including Moray. The point of the convention is to learn from one another about how we are achieving goals that directly mirror those in the national performance framework. Yesterday, we shared case studies. The meeting was live streamed, so anybody can watch it. Shetland Islands Council shared case studies on what it is doing on housing, and Highland Council shared case studies on what it is doing in relation to major energy developments and tackling fuel poverty.
Your question is probably more about how we quantify what we are doing. You want the data that proves what we are doing. That is where the chief statistician’s work comes in. As part of the review, they are working with the Office for National Statistics on how monitoring can be more quantifiable, rather than people just sharing anecdotes and stories or waiting for the child poverty statistics to be published or the statistics on economic performance—gross domestic product, employability and so on—that are published every month. All those statistics directly relate to the national performance framework, but nobody calls them national performance framework statistics.
I do not know whether Keith McDonald or Katie Allison wants to come in. I hope that they can be unmuted rapidly. Perhaps if both of them are unmuted, one of them can come in.
A general point about local government is that, as the committee’s inquiry has identified, there are pockets of good practice. The SPICe analysis draws some of that out. As the Deputy First Minister said, good practice on the qualitative side is important. That goes back to our ideas for the implementation plan, which will need to include how we highlight case studies, good practice and so on, including in relation to local government. Indeed, our national performance framework website includes such information at the moment. That will be important.
On the data side, I do not know whether Katie Allison wants to add anything or to say whether there is anything that we could furnish the committee with in due course.
It is worth reminding the committee that the indicator set is designed not to provide a comprehensive view of all the available evidence but to give an indication of progress through some of the key headline measures at the national level. As I have mentioned, data is not collected directly, but data collections, surveys and administrative data that are already published are utilised, and that data is already published at an aggregated level, when it is available.
As has been mentioned, we and the chief statistician have been considering how we will review and report on the work in the future and how we ensure that we link with other areas of the Government on which statistics are published. That might not be one of our headline measures, but the information might be broken down at local authority level. We need to ensure that we make those links clearly. We will keep considering such issues with the chief statistician.
That is helpful.
My final question is for Kate Forbes. Earlier, we discussed how, perhaps in the past two or three years, some people—although not everybody—have felt that there has not been as much emphasis on the national performance framework as there had been previously and that, therefore, it has been difficult to meet the framework’s demands. Is one possible reason for that difficulty the fact that the framework is, in theory, very ambitious in trying to do some very difficult things, including combining very different objectives and considering the opportunity costs that are involved in all that? Mr Mason mentioned that the Scottish Government has added a few extra dimensions to the framework. Has that made things more difficult?
12:30
I do not necessarily share the premise, but I am conscious that stakeholders have expressed their views on that. When I was finance secretary a couple of years ago, I was responsible for the national performance framework, and the link in that world between inputs and outcomes was really visible then. In a sense, the budget is the area where it is easiest to build on the national performance framework. With my current brief—the economy brief—it is a little bit trickier to directly mirror that but, with the budget, it is easier, just in terms of the mechanics. The budget is an inherently mechanical thing and in that world it is much easier to link the budget directly to the national performance framework. For example, I found it a lot easier to come to committee and to directly map inputs to outcomes, and say that we chose to spend the money on an area directly for whatever reason.
A huge amount of work was done on embedding the national performance framework in budgets. To go back to what I said to Michael Marra, politics by its nature has to respond to emerging challenges, and the past few years have been absolutely turbulent, with the emergencies that have arisen around Covid and the cost of living. Governments have a duty to respond to those challenges. In a stable environment, you have the luxury of being able to directly link the national performance framework to the inputs.
For example, it looks as if poverty is about to increase, because inflation is increasing and the amount of money that people have available is eroded. In that world, you have a very different set of choices to make from those that you have in a world where everything remains equal. I think that we would all like things to remain stable and to be able to track inputs and outcomes simply and straightforwardly, but that is not the world that we live in. Who knows? Maybe the next few years will be a period of stability, prosperity and happiness for all in which these things are easier to track.
Aw, what a wonderful world that will be—motherhood and apple pie all round.
I have one or two more questions, just to finish off. We need a focus on clear and measurable milestones to identify tangible improvements but, in our 2022 report on the national performance framework, we noted that, five years after the previous review, a number of NPF indicators had no data. What guarantees do we have this time that all indicators will provide data so that we can measure progress from the start?
That goes back to the point that Katie Allison made, which is that, basically, we do not collate our own data; we use data. It is a whole-Government responsibility to understand where we do not have data on things that we do, because, ultimately, every penny that we spend should have a demonstrable benefit to the people who raised the revenue in the first place to reinvest—in other words, taxpayers. There needs to be that data. Therefore, I am open to understanding and to feeding back to the chief statistician whether and where there are any gaps in the data and the indicators.
When the Scottish Fiscal Commission gave evidence to us last month, it suggested 21 separate areas for improvement in data collection to allow it to do its work more effectively—and that was just for the commission. The committee and its predecessors have been talking about data for a good decade or so. I realise that, as a devolved Administration, you do not have the same access as the UK Government has, but it is still an area where we need significant improvements.
Before I wind up, are there are any further points that you want to make following our questioning that we have not touched on, or is there a burning issue that you want to get over in relation to the national performance framework and how we go forward?
This is not new, but I want to repeat the point about my openness to the committee’s report and my acceptance that the national performance framework cannot be owned only by Government but has to be seen as broader than that. Parliament, committees and other parties all have a stake in feeding in to the work that we do, and implementation will be the key.
We will perhaps have lots of debate and discussion on what the substance of the national performance framework should be, but I do not think that there is a huge amount of disagreement. Implementation, monitoring, accountability and data will be the key, and I am open to the committee’s views on how we do those things more effectively, without ever forgetting that, actually, data does not impact on an outcome—it is policies that do that, but the data allows us to review those policies. Ultimately, our focus needs to be squarely on meeting the outcomes, but we recognise the importance of monitoring in that process.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for attending from Shetland, and I also thank the officials. Shetland is not as beautiful as Arran, which is in my constituency, but it certainly seems a lot easier to get to. That concludes our scrutiny of the national outcomes. We will report on our views and recommendations to the Scottish Government in November.
I ask committee members who are able to do so to stay behind for an informal discussion with University of Dundee students and staff about our work and to answer any questions about the session that they observed today with the cabinet secretary.
Meeting closed at 12:36.Previous
Pre-budget Scrutiny 2025-26