Chamber and committees

It is not done formally. If I looked at an Accounts Commission report on a local authority, I would be surprised if I did not see some commentary on the degree to which the local authority’s planning and thinking were aligned to the national performance framework. The Accounts Commission is mindful, from a regulatory perspective, that that is a relevant issue for it to consider.

I do not think so. I go back to a point that Liz Smith previously made about the Scottish Leaders Forum, which is generally made up of public sector leaders in Scotland at an operational level, not a political level. As I look at the work that comes out of the forum, I see those individuals as being very much signed up to the agenda that I have talked about extensively this morning, while recognising that service changes have to be made and improvements have to be delivered to enable that to happen. I therefore do not really think that there is an absence of engagement and accountability on such questions.

Given the challenges that we face, we have to be satisfied that there is sufficient pace and intensity to such work. For example, I want us to move at pace to eradicate child poverty. We and all public authorities have to ask ourselves whether we are moving quite as fast as we could.

That is about the political leadership that we need to put in place to move the organisations. We might need to think of different policy solutions that will enable that to be the case and give particular areas of policy greater priority than others.

Good morning, convener. I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee as part of its inquiry into the national performance framework. Although the national performance framework is highly regarded domestically and internationally, we must grapple with the complex question of how to translate the ambition that it sets out into concrete actions for improvement. There will not be one straightforward answer to that question, but by drawing on the experience of those who use the national outcomes to shape policy making and service delivery across local government, the public sector, business organisations and the voluntary sector, I am confident that effective solutions can be found.

Drawing on those experiences and voices exemplifies what the national performance framework is all about: encouraging partnership, collaboration and recognising the part that we all play in improving the wellbeing of people in Scotland. Meeting the challenges of Covid recovery, achieving net zero and reducing child poverty will require more and more of that collaboration, and we must therefore listen carefully in order to unlock more of the national performance framework’s potential.

I have been grateful for the responses that the committee has received to its call for evidence and from the oral evidence sessions that it has held as part of the inquiry. The breadth of responses from across Scottish society demonstrates the wide appeal of the national performance framework and its potential to bring together different sectors on the same outcomes. The responses underscore the strength of commitment to the national performance framework and the progress that we have made since 2018 in making the framework’s approach one for all of Scotland, not just for the Government.

We can and must learn from organisations that have effectively shaped their policies, programmes and systems around the national outcomes and that can demonstrate their impact on them. However, they also present important evidence in highlighting areas in which we can improve. Improvements can be made on issues such as accountability, budgeting for outcomes and integrating the national performance framework into the Government’s systems and processes. I will continue to listen to those important contributions and consider how we will respond.

The inquiry is timely, because the upcoming review of the national outcomes presents an opportunity to put ideas into action. The review, which will be undertaken in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, will consult widely with communities across Scotland on the national outcomes, and it will go further by considering how the national performance framework can achieve greater impact. Public engagement is due to start on 23 June, and the review is to be launched at the national performance framework conference. Communities, charities, businesses and other organisations in Scotland will be given various opportunities to influence what our national outcomes are and how we can create the environment in which they can be achieved. The findings of the committee’s inquiry will be considered as part of that review. As the committee has requested, we will provide the Parliament with ample time to consider the review’s findings and any proposed changes to the national performance framework that it leads to.

I am very happy to address any questions from the committee.

That is a central issue. For the national performance framework to be effective, it has to be a statement of what we as a country are trying to achieve and the outcomes that support those aspirations. Inevitably, funding and policy decisions at an operational level will have enormous significance for whether those aspirations are achieved.

I was interested in some observations shared with the committee by North Ayrshire Council, which is well known to you, convener. The council provided a submission to the inquiry that said:

“The National Outcomes influence the development of our Council Plan which outlines our priorities agreed with our communities and is North Ayrshire Council’s central plan. It forms part of the ‘Golden Thread’ linking national outcomes through to each employee’s daily activities.”

That captures the sense of importance that we want to attach to the national performance framework. In that example from North Ayrshire Council, the contribution from an individual employee is connected right through to the national outcomes as part of the national performance framework. Similarly, budgeting should be so aligned. We must constantly be mindful of that issue in all the planning and decision making that we undertake. We should not take decisions or make judgments that are not aligned with the aspirations that are set out in the framework. Accordingly, we should be able to link decision making at an operational level with the achievement of those outcomes.

The first thing that I will say, which I should have said in my answer to your first question, is that I accept that engagement on the issues will be patchy. That is not satisfactory, but it is an acknowledgement of reality. I will not sit here and deny that reality.

The point that you raise about whether there should be a reward or penalty mechanism is interesting. In a variety of different respects, we should consider whether there is a place for the performance of organisations in the use of public money to influence future decision making.

That is not a route that the Government has gone down. We have gone down more of a route of encouragement and engagement with organisations to get them to acknowledge the significance of the national performance framework and for that to be reflected in the Government’s priorities. However, as I said in my opening statement, the Government will examine with care the outcome of the inquiry and, if the committee comes to conclusions on some of the questions, we will give those issues consideration as we examine the role and content of the national performance framework as part of the review that we will undertake.

Yes, indeed.

We need to have enough people talking about the national performance framework but, if I were to come to the committee and say that I am going to launch a marketing campaign that will spend—[Interruption.] Liz Smith has reacted to that as I predicted. If I said that I was going to launch a marketing campaign of £X million to raise awareness of the national performance framework, I think that it would get the reaction from Liz Smith that it just got and she might not be the only person to give that reaction.

However, it is critical that, in their experience of society, members of the public have the benefit of collaborative policy making that is focused on the achievement of the outcomes. I venture that people want to live in a country in which we

“tackle poverty by sharing opportunities, wealth and power more equally”

and where our children

“grow up loved, safe and respected so that they realise their full potential”.

People in society want to have those experiences, but they do not necessarily need to be able to pass the national performance framework entrance exam through raised awareness. However, public organisations, private businesses and third sector organisations must work together to try to achieve those outcomes so that people experience them.

We have many such organisations already. Any day of the week, Audit Scotland could decide to consider those questions—it has in the past—so I do not think that a commissioner would add an awful lot of value.

There is also Parliament, which exists to challenge on such questions, as does the committee. I welcome the committee’s interest in and engagement on the matter, because it gets to the heart of some of the questions that occupy much of my time as Deputy First Minister, which are about how to encourage more collaborative approaches to policy making and service delivery.

Government is inevitably compartmentalised. We spend a lot of time trying to use the national performance framework as a tool to tell compartments that they must collaborate a great deal more with other compartments to achieve outcomes because we will not transform some of the challenges that affect the constituents whom John Mason represents, such as resolving the poverty that they experience, if we do not work more collaboratively.

The national performance framework’s ethos should be known about not just by those who deliver public services but by those who are engaged in trying to achieve any of the outcomes. Mr Greer put to me the example of a classroom teacher versus senior management; in my opinion, the answer is both.

The classroom teachers who I meet see the wider picture. In general, I do not think that they think that all that they need to attend to is the outcome that

“We are well educated, skilled and able to contribute to society”.

They will be mindful of the outcome that

“We grow up loved, safe and respected so that we realise our ... potential”

and of the outcomes that

“We tackle poverty by sharing opportunities”

better and that

“We ... protect and fulfil human rights and live free from discrimination”.

They will live out all that through the strength of curriculum for excellence.

Therefore, I am distinguishing between an awareness of the national performance framework, which needs to be almost a household understanding—because people should experience those outcomes—and the practitioners’ awareness, which needs to be at a higher level than that household awareness.