Chamber and committees

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—

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.