Finance and Public Administration Committee
Report on the National Performance Framework: Review of National Outcomes
Executive Summary
The evidence we heard confirms the findings from our previous inquiry that the National Performance Framework (NPF) remains an important agreed vision of the type of place Scotland should aspire to be. What is essential to delivering the NPF's vision is, however, an effective implementation plan that is used in decision-making and then evidenced explicitly in National strategies and policies. These findings are not new, having been raised in our previous 2022 NPF inquiry and in the Scottish Government review consultation, as well in this Parliamentary consultation. Whilst we welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to now provide an implementation plan, we make recommendations for the content of that plan. This includes in relation to better linking of budgetary decisions to the National Outcomes, as well as setting out transparently how the National Outcomes will be used by the Scottish Government in deciding National policy and strategy.
In our report we focus our scrutiny on the coherence of the proposed National Outcomes overall, whilst other Parliamentary Committees have given their views on issues raised within their remits. We consider that there is a mismatch between the First Minister’s priority on economic growth with the National Outcomes focus on the wellbeing economy as well as between the proposed National Outcome to 'reduce' poverty compared with the First Minister’s focus to 'eradicate' poverty. In both cases we recommend that the Scottish Government reconciles these differences in the final National Outcomes. Whatever the final number of National Outcomes agreed by the Scottish Government it is important that there is an understanding of the interactions and intersectionality between them – we have made recommendations to the Scottish Government on how to better address and report progress given this complexity.
We acknowledge the rationale behind the Scottish Government's proposal for a changed NPF purpose which focuses solely on wellbeing rather than the current purpose which includes reference to economic growth. We recommend, however, that the Scottish Government should consult on the title of the ‘National Performance Framework’ given this shift in focus. This is one of a number of areas in our report where we recommend further (and more participative) consultation is undertaken by the Scottish Government. Another such area is in the development of National Indicators, where wider consultation will better ensure these are robust measures of progress of all agreed National Outcomes, that have the buy-in of stakeholders, and can be used to inform effective policy making going forward.
Introduction
The Scottish Government describes the National Performance Framework (NPF) as Scotland’s wellbeing framework - setting out "a vision of societal wellbeing through the National Outcomes, and charting progress towards this through a range of social, environmental, and economic indicators."1
The Scottish Government is required, under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 (‘the Act’) to consult on the National Outcomes, which set out the aims of the National Performance Framework, every 5 years. Alongside the proposed National Outcomes, the Scottish Government is required to publish a document setting out further details of the review, including information on its consultation and the responses received, as well as how the proposed National Outcomes have taken account of the views gathered.
This report along with the written views of other Committees and the subsequent Parliamentary debate in the Chamber will, when taken together, constitute the Parliament's consultation response to the Scottish Government's review of the National Outcomes.
The Scottish Government's review
The Scottish Government undertook its second statutory review of the National Outcomes in 2023, and on 1 May 2024, laid its proposed National Outcomes in Parliament for formal consideration in a document entitled Consultation with Parliament in connection with the Review of National Outcomes(hereafter referred to as the “Review Document”). On 19 June 2024, the Scottish Government published its impact assessments on how the proposed National Outcomes will impact on equalities, island communities, child rights and fairer Scotland.
As confirmed by the letter of 17 May 2024 from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic ('the Cabinet Secretary'), a longer period for statutory consultation of Parliament was proposed (than the 40 days in the Act). It was agreed that Parliamentary consultation should be concluded by 29 November 2024 with the Parliamentary debate scheduled for the week beginning 25 November 2024.
The Committee welcomes the Scottish Government's agreement to a longer timescale for undertaking Parliamentary consultation than the 40 days provided for in legislation. We recommend that this consensual approach to agreeing the consultation timescale is adopted for future reviews of the National Outcomes.
In its Review Document, the Scottish Government is proposing changes to the purpose of the NPF and most of the National Outcomes. It explains that these changes are a “necessary course correction rather than another complete overhaul” as was seen following the previous statutory review in 2018. That review had seen a “significant repositioning” of the NPF including rebranding it as a framework for the whole of Scotland, and adding the values section and simplifying the overall format and language.1
The Review Document explains that within the wider context of the Verity House agreementi with local government “changes to the NPF have only been recommended where there is strong evidence that this is necessary to ensure the NPF remains ambitious and forward looking for the coming five years, as it did in 2018.”1
The changes proposed to the National Outcomes as set out in the Review Document are as follows:
New Outcomes: Care, Climate Action, Housing.
Amended Outcomes: Children and Young People, Communities, Wellbeing Economy and Fair Work, Education and Learning, Environment, Equality and Human Rights, Health, International, Reduce Poverty.
Unchanged Outcome: Culture.
Amended extended definitions (see Annexe 4 of the Review Document): All the National Outcomes have proposed changes to their extended definitions, informed, the Scottish Government explains, by the consultation evidence. The extended definitions provide greater detail of what is covered by each National Outcome.
An overview of how the proposed changes to the National Outcomes compare to the current National Outcomes is set out in Figure 1. The proposed National Outcomes are set out alongside the current National Outcomes in Annexe A.
Figure 1: How the proposed changes to the National Outcomes compare to the current National Outcomes 
The Scottish Government explains that National Indicators, which are used to measure progress towards the National Outcomes, will be revised to reflect the final National Outcomes. An Implementation Plan, which will be informed by the review, is expected to be published by the Scottish Government alongside its final National Outcomes. The timetable for publishing these final National Outcomes (following Parliamentary consultation), the associated Implementation Plan and the National Indicators has yet to be confirmed.
Parliamentary consultation
The Finance and Public Administration (FPA) Committee is the lead committee for the Scottish Parliament’s scrutiny of the proposed National Outcomes. As the National Outcomes fall within the remits of a number of committees, Committee Conveners agreed a joint approach to scrutiny at the Conveners Group meeting on 26 April 2023.
The FPA Committee wrote to Conveners on 6 March 2024 and again on 3 May 2024 setting out the agreed scrutiny approach to be undertaken by Committees. As set out in these letters, the FPA Committee co-ordinated a joint call for views and news release after the proposed National Outcomes were laid in Parliament. This joint Committee consultation ran from 13 May 2024 to 28 June 2024 and sought views on the proposed National Outcomes and other aspects of the review and the NPF. The consultation received 72 submissions which are available to view on Citizen Space and SPICe has provided a summary of the submissions received.
As a result of this joint approach, it was for each Committee to consider their approach to scrutiny of the proposed National Outcomes and the issues raised in the written submissions that relate to their remit. This approach differed from that adopted in the first National Outcomes statutory review in 2018 when each proposed National Outcome was 'assigned' to the relevant Committee, within whose remit it fell, for scrutiny. This previous approach was in part due to the limited time (40 days) in which to complete Parliamentary scrutiny.
In 2024 the FPA Committee agreed to focus its scrutiny more on the cross-cutting elements of the proposed National Outcomes and the review. This approach also enabled the Committee to build on themes arising from its previous inquiry entitled: National Performance Framework: Ambitions into Action and its report on 3 October 2022 (hereafter referred to as the “2022 NPF report”). Where relevant, the findings from that inquiry and the subsequent response to the Committee’s report from the then Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery, John Swinney MSP, (hereafter referred to as the ‘then DFM’) are referenced in this report.
We thank all those who provided written submissions as well as those who shared their views with us and with other Parliamentary Committees. This evidence has greatly enhanced our consideration of the proposed National Outcomes.
We have included in Annexe B, links to the written outcomes of scrutiny undertaken by other Committees. We request that the Scottish Government responds to each of those Committees, including on how their recommendations and comments have informed the final National Outcomes.
As the approach adopted by Committees to joint scrutiny of the proposed National Outcomes is new, we invite the Conveners Group to review the effectiveness of this approach. This should consider the timescales and whether any lessons can be learned for consulting the Parliament as part of future statutory reviews of the National Outcomes.
The National Performance Framework - name and purpose
As noted earlier in this report the NPF is described in the Review Document as Scotland’s Wellbeing Framework. It sets out National Outcomes which describe the kind of Scotland the NPF aims to create. The values that guide the NPF are: "to treat all our people with kindness, dignity and compassion; to respect the rule of law; and to act in an open and transparent way."1
In its 2022 NPF Report the Committee reflects upon the evidence it heard about the title of ‘the NPF’ and whether it adequately reflected the way in which it is intended to operate.2 The then DFM responded that "I listened with keen interest to the discussion on renaming the NPF and this will be considered as part of the upcoming Review." 3The Committee welcomed this commitment to reflect on the terminology within the NPF and its title, particularly if, "as a consequence of that review the NPF moves further away from being a ‘Performance Framework.’"2
In its Review Document, the Scottish Government reports that amongst the main themes arising from the consultation responses it received was the need to “change the purpose wording” and “change the name of the NPF”. Evidence it received proposed changing the name of the NPF to ‘Scotland’s Wellbeing Framework’ in order to improve clarity about the role and purpose of the NPF. The Scottish Government reports that there was, however, also concern that changing the name of the NPF could impact on the “framework’s brand” which has been built up since the NPF's creation in 2007. Another concern was whether removing ‘performance’ from the title could be perceived as altering the focus of the framework. The Review Document confirms that the Scottish Government does not propose to change of title of the NPF.5
The Scottish Government does, however, propose to change the purpose of the NPF (as set out below) based on the consultation and engagement it undertook.
Current Purpose: To focus on creating a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increased wellbeing, and sustainable and inclusive economic growth.
Proposed Purpose: To improve the wellbeing of people living in Scotland now and in the future.
The joint Committee consultation invited comments on the changed purpose of the NPF and many welcomed the focus on wellbeing and the extensive coverage of the NPF on key areas impacting wellbeing. Some submissions, however, raised concerns regarding the omission of explicit references to economic growth. Others also suggested that the scope of the NPF should extend beyond Scotland to reflect a global outlook whilst Volunteer Scotland argued that it should have "a focus on collective responsibility" for that shared purpose.6
In its submission Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce (ECC) stated that they “believe removing the reference to a ‘successful country’ removes an element of the ambition that the original purpose contained.” They added that removing the reference to the economy risks “losing the focus on something that is a critical enabler of people’s wellbeing” and that some of the changes appear to have reduced the focus on the role of business or downgraded the ambitions for the economy.7
A number of those we heard from, such as the Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland (WEAS) and Carnegie UK supported the change in purpose of the NPF. Carnegie UK explained that more recently the NPF has evolved "more into line with our international comparators for what is called the wellbeing framework." They explained that the concept of wellbeing is one that the people they speak with can understand and it can "encapsulate many of the economic, environmental, democratic and social outcomes that the framework aims to achieve."8
As the Scottish Women's Budget Group (SWBG) explained, economic growth in of itself "sometimes does not translate to income distribution" which can have an impact on inequalities, nor does it help reduce poverty. They added that it also does not take into consideration any negative impacts on the environment of economic growth which can impact on wellbeing. As well as that, unpaid work "is not taken into account in any accounting mechanisms." The Health and Social Care Alliance (The ALLIANCE) added that economic growth is not always felt by people "on the ground" and that over the years it had become more concentrated amongst those who have the most.6
A number of organisations considered that the title of 'the NPF' is misleading and that it should include the term 'Wellbeing.' As explained by Carnegie UK, the NPF should be a vision for how people would like their country to be rather than about measuring the performance of services and Government. They remain "unconvinced by the Scottish Government's contention that changing the name would result in brand dilution."8
The Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) also agreed with the proposed change in the NPF's purpose, and that wellbeing should be reflected in its title, as providing a good opportunity to "reinvigorate people's enthusiasm for it." They consider the proposed NPF purpose appeals as it is more streamlined, simple and better aligned with the global focus on wellbeing. They added that although "the name is important...what truly matters is how it is used and implemented."8 This was a common view across the evidence the Committee considered as part of this review as well as in our 2022 NPF Report.
In evidence, the Cabinet Secretary, explained her approach to proposing changes to the NPF including its title—
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.12
The Cabinet Secretary added that the NPF is a strong brand name including internationally and in how it is used for policy making. Responding to concerns about the perception that economic growth had been downgraded in the proposed National Outcomes and NPF purpose, the Cabinet Secretary explained that "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." As such she considered that economic growth is the means by which the NPF ambitions for fairness, better health outcomes and no fuel poverty, for example, can be delivered.12
The evidence we heard confirms the findings from our previous inquiry that the NPF remains an important agreed vision of the type of place Scotland should aspire to be. That said, a common theme throughout our inquiry (and in our 2022 NPF report) is that whilst the National Outcomes are important, it is equally important, if not more so, that they are actively used to shape policy and spending decisions and to inform service delivery. As such, the need for an effective implementation plan and indicators that are used in decision-making was frequently cited as being essential to delivering the NPF's vision. We comment further on what would make for an effective implementation plan and the development of National Indicators later in this report.
Reflecting upon the proposed change in purpose for the NPF, we acknowledge the rationale underpinning this change -that is to separate the outcome the NPF aims to achieve (that of improving wellbeing) from a means to achieving that outcome (that of economic growth). The proposed simplified focus on wellbeing may also, as we heard, resonate more, and support its greater understanding with organisations and citizens.
This proposed change in purpose does, however, call into question whether the title of the 'National Performance Framework' remains accurate and relevant, particularly given the Review Document itself explains the NPF is "Scotland's Wellbeing Framework." We note that the Scottish Government's written consultation and call for evidence for this review did not specifically seek views on whether the title should be changed. We consider this to be a missed opportunity to 'evidence' more fully the risks and benefits of such a change.
In our 2022 NPF report we recommended that "the title of the NPF is considered as part of the next review particularly if, as a consequence of that review, the NPF moves further away from being a ‘Performance Framework.’" Given this and our recommendations for further consultation (made later in this report) we invite the Scottish Government to consider also seeking views on a name change for the 'NPF' as part of its consultation plans for improved implementation, guidance and the development of National Indicators.
Prominence of the National Outcomes and NPF
In its Programme for Government for 2021-22 the Scottish Government confirmed that it would further develop the use of the NPF through the then upcoming review of National Outcomes and through consultation on a Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill. In response to the Committee’s 2022 NPF report the then DFM explained that “The proposed Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill will be informed by the findings of this report as well as the findings of the upcoming Review of National Outcomes.”1 That Bill was not identified in the First Minister’s year four priorities for the legislative programme 2025-26 published on 4 September 2024. In December 2022, Sarah Boyack MSP lodged a proposal for a Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill which, following consultation, has now secured the right to be introduced as a Bill. As part of that consultation the potential for the proposed bill to improve the efficacy of the NPF as the distinct overarching framework for achieving National Outcomes, was recognised by respondents.
At the Committee meeting on 8 October the Cabinet Secretary confirmed that—
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...2
In its SPICe briefing on the Programme for Government (PfG) 2025-26, it was noted that “The PfG makes no reference to the National Performance Framework (NPF) or how the measures set out under each of the four priorities will contribute to the National Outcomes which underpin the NPF.”
The ALLIANCE explained why the visibility of the NPF in the PfG matters in that "How do we know that it is being applied if the Government is not saying explicitly in the programme for government how the programme will meet the national outcomes."3Carnegie UK said that they "lack confidence that it will be used" questioning the extent to which the NPF reflects the priorities that exist in Government.4
The ALLIANCE considered that the Government should in formal strategy documents be clearly saying "We have this framework. This is how this strategy, this programme for Government and this budget aligns with it." Stirling Council stressed that the NPF needs to also connect to other existing processes such as the local government benchmarking framework - which currently has no mention of or connection to the NPF. Other Scottish Government strategies highlighted by witnesses, which omit any reference to the NPF, include the green industrial strategy and the biodiversity strategy.3 Dr Max French also highlighted the lack of connection between the NPF and Scottish Government ways of working such as the Christie Commission principles and the Scottish Approach to Service Design.4
Given these concerns, we questioned witnesses as to whether the NPF remained necessary given other Government ambitions such as the First Minister's four key priorities. Responding, witnesses were clear that the NPF is needed for a number of reasons, including to:
"Set a long-term vision that sits above the day-to-day noise in the system"4;
Enable public services and other agencies to understand "what their integrated contribution to a long-term outcome looked like" (and to better ensure that action on one outcome does not accidentally impact negatively on addressing another outcome)4;
Provide an outcomes-based perspective on the effectiveness of spending decisions particularly when resources are tight, and
Support progress in addressing longer term challenges such as climate change, poverty and inequality.4
The Committee heard that when the NPF was first launched in 2007 it was prominent and "talked about alot". The SHRC explained that that prominence has, however, "disappeared" with witnesses identifying a number of reasons contributing towards that decline. This includes that the previous dedicated support for the NPF from the Scottish Government to collective leadership across public services does not exist anymore so that capacity building "has more or less disappeared." Carnegie UK highlighted that in Wales a significant way that capacity has been built up is through specifying in legislation the way of workings that will deliver those long-term outcomes.4
At a local government level, Carnegie UK observed that the squeeze on budgets was also being seen to result in a focus on delivering statutory obligations such that there wasn't the "space, energy and resources" for discussing longer term sustainability.4
As Dr Max French described it, the Scottish Government's commitment to the NPF was "patchy and mixed" with a level of obscurity in how it has used the NPF compared with the great deal of attention paid to it by those outwith the Scottish Government, such as in the third sector. 4
The ALLIANCE highlighted a mismatch between the focus of the First Minister's priorities (one of which is growing the economy) and the proposed National Outcomes focus on the wellbeing economy. They observed that whilst the NPF has moved towards a focus on the wellbeing economy, the changes to Cabinet Secretary portfolios and titles have moved towards a more traditional view of the economy. Both should, they contend, be aligned to a common purpose - either a wellbeing economy or economic growth - if Scotland was serious about delivering on its ambitions.3
Carnegie UK explained that there is an "interesting alchemy between what the Administration has to deliver - doing its job well- and the political leadership that is set to incentivise that delivery." When the two are in alignment is where most progress can be made.4
The Cabinet Secretary contends that the lack of references to the NPF and National Outcomes in the PfG is because the "whole point of the PfG was to be short, punchy and clear." She added that "it is a lot easier to monitor progress against fewer hardhitting actions than it is to do that against lots of nice actions that no one could disagree with." As such, including an explicit reference to the NPF in the PfG would have, along with other omissions highlighted by stakeholders, diluted that short and punchy approach.2
The Cabinet Secretary assured the Committee that the First Minister's four priorities and the PfG are very closely aligned with, and guided by, the National Outcomes. She recognised that the Government needs to have a visible leadership role in ensuring the NPF is adopted across Scotland and—
That requires an explicit element of rhetoric and visibility in certain documents.2
The Cabinet Secretary, however, also highlighted the importance of not confusing visibility with the practice in how the NPF is embedded in Scottish Government's decision-making. She added that, during her time in government, she had seen an increasing awareness of the NPF and "an increasing desire to align our policy work with it." Scottish Government officials are trained on the NPF, it is promoted to policy advisers, and those in the strategy directorate and the performance, delivery and resilience directorate now "own" the NPF.2
Scottish Government officials added that "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." The Cabinet Secretary explained that she is—
...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.2
We agree with witnesses that there appears to be a mismatch between the focus of the First Minister's priority on economic growth with the focus of the proposed National Outcomes on the wellbeing economy. This supports the views we heard that there has been a perceived shift in focus away from the National Outcomes more recently, towards delivering other stated priorities. We recommend that the Scottish Government addresses this perceived mismatch in the final National Outcomes along with a similar issue related to the 'reduce poverty' proposed National Outcome (commented on later in this report).
We acknowledge that the lack of visibility of the NPF in Scottish Government strategies, policy and the PfG does not necessarily mean that it is not being used effectively in practice. As evidence to both our previous inquiry and this inquiry has however shown, the use of the NPF is 'patchy and mixed' and the Government's approach whereby the NPF is seen as "implicit" in policy development and delivery does not reflect the status or importance it should have.
Until such time as the NPF is effectively embedded in all decision-making across Government, the public sector and other organisations, (and can be evidenced as such) visibility does matter. This is particularly so when it comes to Scottish Government leadership in setting out national policies. We repeat our previous recommendation that all government (national and local) policies, strategies and legislation should explicitly set out how each will deliver on specific National Outcomes, their expected/intended impact on those Outcomes and approaches to monitoring and evaluation.19
We recognise that aspects of the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill proposed by Sarah Boyack MSP may have implications for the NPF. Our recommendations in this report and our previous report could therefore also inform any future development of that proposed Bill.
The proposed National Outcomes
There are 13 proposed National Outcomes, an increase of two from the current 11 National Outcomes. All have changes proposed to them with the exception of the current National Outcome relating to culture which remains unchanged. All have changes proposed to their extended definitions.i The extended definitions "aim to capture the main issues raised through the evidence and provide an opportunity to provide context to the National Outcome."1 The values of the NPF remain unchanged.
In our 2022 NPF report we concluded that the NPF remains an important agreed vision of the type of place Scotland should aspire to be but that it needs to make more sustained progress towards achieving that vision, to ensure its ambitions are translated into action.
This conclusion was also reflected in the evidence we heard about the proposed National Outcomes. The responses to the joint Committee consultation reflected strong support for the proposed National Outcomes, but many submissions recommended specific policy approaches and improvements that they considered would lead to a more equitable and sustainable future, if implemented. Parliamentary Committees also commented on these concerns in their consultation responses following their consideration of relevant evidence. Given our remit, we focussed our consideration on how the proposed National Outcomes work together as a cohesive package.
During evidence taking the Committee heard differing views as to whether the increase in the number of proposed National Outcomes to 13 could dilute the focus on each Outcome. A potential risk highlighted by Carnegie UK is that with 13 Outcomes, each one can be mapped onto one or two Scottish Government directorates which then almost creates new siloed ways of working rather than "being outcomes that cohere people around them." In contrast in Wales, the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2017 provides for seven wellbeing goals. With 13 proposed National Outcomes, Carnegie UK consider—
there is now a risk that there are so many that the challenge of using them to set a cohering long term challenge is, in fact, greater rather than lesser.2
The SHRC suggested the increased number of proposed National Outcomes could be a consequence of the use of online consultation by the Scottish Government—
Asking lots of people questions in an online consultation meant that we got an expanded number of outcomes without any discussion about what that might actually mean, how we could do it better or how they do it in Wales.2
WEAS also highlighted the importance that National Outcomes provide a long-term perspective whilst ensuring that actions to progress one Outcome do not unintentionally make progress with another Outcome worse. In addition, if these trade-offs are identified in advance, then "we at least need a way to think that through." At present WEAS suggested that is not happening.2 OAS highlighted United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 17 (UNSDG) which is "popularly referred to as the partnership goal" and suggested that National Outcomes need to better reflect this UNSDG and recognise these conflicts of interest through guidance and tools to support local authorities (and others) to address that in their decision-making. 5
Others disagreed, suggesting that having more Outcomes provides greater clarity over what specifically needs to be addressed. The SWBG argue that compared to the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, "there isn't an issue" with the number of proposed National Outcomes. Volunteer Scotland agree with this position, adding that it "will ensure that more issues are given the attention that they need."5
WEAS highlighted in their submission that the proposed National Outcomes and the wider NPF do not include any references to the values of democracy and participation beyond the value to act in an open and transparent way. They consider this is a “major omission” as a “thriving democracy that enables everyone to participate in civic life and influence the decisions that affect them is an important ingredient for a successful Scotland and collective wellbeing in its own right.” In addition, robust democratic values and structures are “important for delivering the other National Outcomes.” They therefore proposed a new National Outcome that explicitly highlights the need for democracy and protection of civic space.5
Many respondents to the call for views advocated for a framework that recognises the interconnected nature of various sectors and outcomes. For instance, health outcomes are closely linked to economic conditions, educational opportunities, and environmental factors. This interconnectedness should, they considered, be reflected in policy design and implementation processes to foster holistic progress. As Aberdeen City Council noted, "Joined-up policy making requires an understanding of the interlinkages and co-dependencies between the outcomes and there is a need for a holistic view”.8
Responding to the discussion about the number of National Outcomes being proposed, the Cabinet Secretary explained that, in order for the NPF to be owned nationally, it is designed so that it enjoys as much consensus as possible and cannot be disagreed with. In that regard, additional National Outcomes have been proposed where "we had significant support to make changes."9
There could be potential negative consequences for whatever number of National Outcomes are finally agreed. As we heard, too few and they become too high level to focus decision-making, too many and there is increased complexity in managing the conflicts of interest (or trade-offs) that arise between them. It is regrettable that the consultation approach adopted by the Scottish Government to this review did not provide greater participatory approaches with citizens to explore these potential consequences. Such an approach might have provided the "significant support" sought by the Cabinet Secretary in relation to the optimal number of Outcomes that should be proposed.
Regardless of the number of National Outcomes finally decided upon by the Scottish Government, what is clear to us is that the interlinkages and co-dependences between them are also important, particularly for those considering the potential trade-offs when using the National Outcomes to shape policy and spending decisions. We therefore recommend that the implementation plan should set out how those using the NPF should navigate that complexity and consider potential trade-offs when making decisions.
Given the Committee's public administration remit we also seek clarification from the Scottish Government of how the National Outcomes recognise the importance of a thriving democracy that enables participation, as well as partnership working, as highlighted in evidence to us.
Alongside the proposed National Outcomes are proposed extended definitions which "provide context" and which update the 'vision' set out for each current National Outcome. Some of the proposed extended definitions describe an ambition such as "we have clean and unpolluted air, water and soils" whilst others indicate decisions such as "we support and invest in our NHS ...". We seek clarification from the Scottish Government as to how it intends these extended definitions to be used in decision-making, for example, are they intended to drive decision-making or provide a guide to the range of outcomes each National Outcome might encompass?
Cross-cutting themes
Responses to the joint Committee consultation identified some cross-cutting themes that need to be better integrated across all proposed National Outcomes. Those themes were Equalities and Human Rights, and Sustainability. It was considered that addressing these issues not only requires a comprehensive and integrated approach to policy design and implementation but that incorporating them across the proposed National Outcomes could result in more effectively achieving the NPF goals of promoting inclusive growth and reducing inequalities.
In its Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA), the Scottish Government sets out how it gathered evidence, through its consultation, to inform the EQIA. It confirmed that "the wording of the National Outcomes and their extended definitions have been considered and improvements were identified. The wording of the proposed revised National Outcomes and their extended definitions were then also analysed." The EQIA concludes that a range of potential positive impacts of the revised National Outcomes have been identified. This is in particular "through the inclusion of a new Care Outcome, the revised Equality and Human Rights Outcome, and the mainstreaming of gender and disability throughout many of the extended definitions." As a result "It can be concluded that the revised National Outcomes contribute towards the three public sector equality duties and overall have the potential to have a positive impact."1
The EQIA also noted the evidence received by the Scottish Government calling for a more gendered NPF. In response they propose to mainstream gender more effectively across the National Outcomes and "the revised extended definitions will broaden the scope to include the unique experiences of women and girls".2 They also respond to concerns regarding the lack of disaggregated data, commenting that due to how the NPF data is collected and presented “it is currently not possible to take an intersectional approach.” Work is however underway to “pursue a route to providing intersectional information on the National Indicators.”1
In its publication 'Using intersectionality to understand structural inequality in Scotland: evidence synthesis', the Scottish Government comments that "there exists many different definitions of intersectionality in the literature". In its Thematic Gender Review of the NPF the Scottish Government explains that people’s experiences are shaped by being a member of interconnected social groups including gender, race, age, disability, sexual orientation, economic status and wider life experiences. People's lives are also affected by power structures, such as laws, policies and governments, which shape peoples’ lives in different ways according to these identities. "For example, a disabled woman may experience overlapping discrimination and challenges as a woman and as a disabled person but also uniquely as a disabled woman. The resulting inequality is known as intersectionality."2
A number of the submissions received to the joint Committee consultation suggest that the proposed National Outcomes have the potential to reduce inequalities but, as seen throughout this report, this will be largely dependent upon on the thoroughness of their implementation and the robustness of associated indicators (and on which we comment more fully in the next section).
The SWBG also considered that unless the accompanying indicators are strong and specific enough (and ensure budgetary support) then "it is hard to assert that the new proposed National Outcomes will make an impact on inequality." 5The ALLIANCE considered that the Outcomes say very little about how inequality will actually be reduced.6
A key question raised in the evidence was whether equalities and human rights should be a standalone National Outcome and/or mainstreamed throughout the National Outcomes and the extended definitions.
In evidence WEAS welcomed that inequality is now mentioned in the title of one of the proposed National Outcomes but argued that it is also important that it is embedded in or relates to each Outcome. Equally important is that equalities are really embedded and there are clear indicators that are segregated, for example, by gender so those Outcomes can be checked. The SHRC added that both approaches to including equalities and human rights in the National Outcomes are needed as —
in an ideal world, human rights and equality would permeate the entire outcome set without the need for individual outcomes; however, we cannot mainstream what we do not understand. We have had 25 years of equality, and we still do not properly get it.7
The Cabinet Secretary explained that, in response to recommendations in the Scottish Government's consultation, it had focussed more explicitly on gender across the proposed National Outcomes. This included carrying out a thematic gender review of the NPF as recommended by the national advisory council on women and girls. The themes from that work are reflected in the proposed National Outcomes.
Scottish Government officials added that the EQIA will be revisited to support the refreshed set of National Outcomes to be published next year. Officials confirmed that the Thematic Gender Review of the NPF would be published "for consideration within the Parliamentary review."8 This document (referred to hereafter as the 'Thematic Gender Review') was subsequently published on 31 October 2024.
The Thematic Gender Review highlights that "one of the overarching considerations in addressing the gender gaps in the NPF was whether or not to have a standalone National Outcome for Women." The Scottish Government explains that whilst this would be in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, it has instead proposed to mainstream gender as "this prevents the perception that other National Outcomes do not relate to women... and ensure that all National Outcomes are applicable for everyone living in Scotland."
The Thematic Gender Review also explains that one of the actions in the Scottish Government's Equality Evidence Strategy 2023-2025 is to "Undertake research to synthesise available evidence on key structural intersectionalities, identify gaps and suggest ways in which evidence gaps can be captured through both qualitative and quantitative research." This work along with wider work within the Scottish Government will be developed and "its applications to other intersectional elements in the NPF will be explored throughout 2024 and 2025." 2
As we note earlier in this report, with more National Outcomes there is potential for greater complexity in the interactions between them, or in this case the intersectionality between them. In relation to the work underway as part of the Equality Evidence Strategy and within the Scottish Government, we seek:
confirmation of the extent to which the series of intersectionality reviews will involve stakeholders representing a range of external organisations, academia and interest groups.
an update, by November 2025, on the progress of this work towards providing intersectional information as part of the reporting on progress with the National Outcomes.
We welcome that the Scottish Government has undertaken a Thematic Gender Review of the NPF. We are disappointed, however, that the outcome of that review was not published alongside the Review Document. This has meant its findings could not be considered by witnesses or be fully scrutinised by Parliamentary Committees. We seek confirmation from the Cabinet Secretary that, for future reviews, this report will be published at the same time as the proposed National Outcomes are laid in Parliament.
The Government's approach is to address gender and disability inequalities through better mainstreaming of them across the extended definitions instead of providing a specific National Outcome, as some requested. Given this approach we agree that it is important that the National Indicators can specifically evidence the impact of the National Outcomes on reducing gender and disability inequality. We comment further on National Indicators in the next section.
National Indicators
In evidence to the Committee the SHRC explained that—
The outcomes and indicators are two separate processes, but they should really be part of the same discussion, because how you measure what is important is to measure what you treasure. Unless that is part of the discussion on setting out the outcomes, we lose the ability to develop accountability from the ground up.1
In its first statutory review of the National Outcomes in 2018 the Scottish Government laid in Parliament for consultation the proposed National Outcomes as well as draft proposed National Indicators, although it acknowledged that those Indicators were likely to differ from the final list. As part of that review the Scottish Government held 22 workshops to support the development of National Indicators, following on from the development of the proposed National Outcomes. According to the parliamentary consultation document laid by the Scottish Government at that time "The guiding principle was that we measure what we should measure, rather than just what we are currently able to measure.".2
In its 2022 NPF Report the Committee reported its concern that a number of the 81 National Indicators still had no data, almost five years after the 2018 review, which we reported “hampers the ability to fully track and scrutinise progress in those areas. We therefore recommend that the next iteration of the NPF includes a set of indicators… agreed, between Scottish Government, local government and relevant sector representatives, to best track progress in delivering the outcomes."
The Review Document sets out the Scottish Government's approach to developing the National Indicators to support the final National Outcomes. This includes "assessing the relevance and quality of all current 81 National Indicators as well as exploring alternative measures that would better reflect the refreshed National Outcomes."3 It confirms that of the 599 requests to add new indicators across most themes and the additional 219 requests to change or remove current indicators, 73% came from the call for evidence. This, it explains was because the call for evidence was "the only strand where guidance included a prompt requesting feedback on the indicator set...".4
As well as considering how the next iteration of National Indicators can better align with the indicators for UNSDGs, the Review Document confirms that the Chief Statistician is leading the work on a revised set of National Indicators.4 It also states that indicators will need to meet a minimum data quality level to be included and will be independently peer reviewed by the NPF Technical Advisory Group, chaired by the Chief Statistician. Additional engagement will be undertaken with the NPF related Policy Advisory Group (PAG) and Expert Advisory Group (EAG), with feedback from the Scottish Government's Executive team.
The Review Document explains how the National Indicators support decision-making by reporting “systematically and objectively across a range of economic, social and environmental indicators.” This helps to understand, publicly and transparently, the progress being made towards realising the NPF vision and the data provided “helps us to understand the challenges in achieving our outcomes and helps us focus polices, services and resources on tackling those challenges”.4
The SHRC and others such as Volunteer Scotland expressed concern about the approach taken to developing National Indicators as part of this review, particularly as they were seen by many as being as important as the proposed National Outcomes. As the SHRC explained, the discussion about what the National Outcomes may mean at a local level when developing relevant indicators to measure progress has not happened this time but is important as "delivering on one outcome might be different from one local area to another." This matters since it impacts on how local authorities are held accountable. They argued that a matrix of different indicators would better capture the intersectionality with regard to what the outcomes are trying to achieve.1
The SWBG highlighted that having proposed National Outcomes underpinned by strong indicators that reference budgets will be important in measuring the progress towards achieving those Outcomes. OAS also highlighted how existing measurement sets such as the Wellbeing Economy Monitor provide very good sources of indicators which could be used to measure progress with the proposed National Outcomes.8 That said, as Stirling Council explained —
There is no use in having performance information if you cannot or do not act on it. As I said, performance reporting looks backwards. We need to embrace performance management, which looks forwards. We need to use the data and make new decisions that are based on that data and on what we are seeing.8
Volunteer Scotland and others argued that whilst it is important to consider the proposed National Outcomes and whether they align with the UNSDGs "it is more important to consider the indicators that sit below that." They expressed disappointment that the Scottish Government has not committed to consult more widely on the specific indicators—
That could be a real barrier and a challenge, and it could potentially exclude a lot of organisations and important stakeholders and prevent them from suggesting what would be a good measure of the national performance framework.8
They highlighted a current example from the composite indicator on social capital for the communities outcome, which they consider is quite opaque. Volunteer Scotland explained that this indicator comprises of four other indicators which are then calculated into a "quite meaningless number, which makes it difficult to fully understand the challenge that we face in the community." They suggested that the approach to developing the indicators being proposed by the Government, allied with a lack of transparency over their development, gives the perception that "the Government is not only marking its own homework but setting the questions." As such there is a potential for it to choose indicators that match up with things that are progressing well.8
The Cabinet Secretary confirmed in evidence that a refreshed set of indicators will be launched alongside the new National Outcomes in 2025 but observed that "data does not impact on outcomes - it is policies that does that but the data allows us to review those policies."12 In its Thematic Gender Review the Scottish Government confirms that it has, based on stakeholder workshops, "adapted the National Indicators to encapsulate the experiences of women and girls better across those indicators that are people and household based..."
The EQIA of the review also recognised stakeholders' calls for improvement in the National Indicators, highlighting limitations in the current approach to measuring progress and listing a range of key areas that users would like to see improved. This includes better data disaggregation for subgroups of the population; giving people the data they need and when they need it to ensure no-one is left behind. Also called for was better connectivity to the wider data landscape and policies or strategies that help to move the dial on the National Outcomes with the ability to show how their work contributes to delivering the National Outcomes.13
Scottish Government officials explained that the NPF does not collect data directly but "utilises data collections, surveys and administrative data from across the Scottish Government." This approach has, they observed, many advantages including using the rich data already collected and reducing the respondent burden in data collection. They were "financially mindful of not creating additional resource and project costs where they are not needed."12
Officials recognised, however, that this does mean there can be data gaps where no suitable data is currently available. Such data gaps can in turn be used as a driver for change, to evidence the need for commissioned analysis to fill the gap and can then be included in the next National Outcomes review. Officials stressed that the indicator set is designed to give an indication of progress through some of the key headline measures at the national level, with more detailed data provided elsewhere.12
The Cabinet Secretary explained that as part of the review the Chief Statistician is working with the Office for National Statistics on how monitoring can be more quantifiable, rather than sharing anecdotes or stories or waiting for the publication of statistics elsewhere. As such she is—
open to understanding and to feeding back to the chief statistician whether and where there are any gaps in the data and the indicators.12
We agree with witnesses that the National Indicators are an essential component of the NPF, supporting an overview of the progress being made in delivering the National Outcomes and the NPF's vision. We do not consider it acceptable that, as of August 2024, no data is available for 11 of the 81 current National Indicators that were agreed as part of the previous National Outcomes review in 2018. This undermines the ability of the NPF to "chart progress" and "to review those policies" in delivering the NPF.
We therefore reiterate our previous recommendation that National Indicators should not be left for development after the National Outcomes are finalised. As we have already seen, this can lead to lengthy delays (sometimes over a number of years) in reporting the progress being made with some National Outcomes. We therefore request from the Scottish Government:
An explanation of the reasons why it did not publish draft National Indicators alongside its proposed National Outcomes, as was the case in its first review in 2018;
Clarification of the extent to which there will be continuity with the data being reported on the new National Outcomes to that previously reported. This could allow progress to be monitored over a longer time frame.
Whilst we recognise that some gaps in data may be identified when considering the appropriate National Indicators, we recommend that the Scottish Government consult with relevant sectors on the proposed National Indicators and agree with them acceptable proxy measures to address any data gaps. This participative approach to developing the National Indicators reflects the ethos that achieving the National Performance Framework ambitions is a collective endeavour. We recommend that for future reviews the Scottish Government consults more widely on the National Indicators and publishes, to the extent possible, proposed draft Indicators as part of the Review Document laid in the Scottish Parliament.
As we heard it is important that the data from the National Indicators is actively used to assess both past performance and inform decision-making for future policies. We recommend that the implementation plan includes information on how the data from the National Indicators should be used to inform Scottish Government and others decision-making.
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs)
The Review Document explains that the NPF is a framework “to localise the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Progress towards the National Outcomes is a proxy for progress towards the SDGs given the close alignment between the two.”1
In its Review Document the Scottish Government report they had heard from stakeholders that alignment with the UNSDGs could be improved. The Scottish Government then sets out the ways it has addressed this, including adding a new Climate Actions Outcome that mirrors the wording of SDG13 and more effective representation of equalities in some National Outcomes. In addition, consideration will also be given “during the development of National Indicators to the consultation evidence received that suggested how better to align the Indicators with the SDG indicator set.”1
Submissions to the joint Committee call for views commended the effort to incorporate SDG principles into the NPF, with some respondents welcoming the proposed new Outcome on Housing, which they contend brings the National Outcomes into closer alignment with SDG 11 (Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable).3Several respondents to the joint Committee call for views also considered, more broadly, that the development of the National Indicators offers an opportunity to bring the NPF into greater alignment with the SDGs.
Across the evidence received there were also a number of suggestions made as to how the alignment of the proposed National Outcomes with SDGs could be further improved. This included SDGs that some considered are currently underrepresented to be better linked into the National Outcomes such as SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 9 (Industry Innovation and Infrastructure), and SDG 17 (Partnerships to Deliver the Goals).
Several responses highlighted concerns surrounding the treatment of poverty within the proposed National Outcomes. Inclusion Scotland noted that, while SDG 1’s goal to “end poverty” is prioritised globally, the framing of the National Outcome to “reduce poverty” is seen as diminishing the centrality of tackling poverty as a foundational element for achieving other goals.4
The SWBG considered that—
“there is what seems to be a lack of ambition, as demonstrated by the difference between the UN sustainable development goal to achieve no poverty and the Scottish national outcome, which is to reduce poverty. In this case, semantics are important.”5
One of the First Minister's four priorities is to 'eradicate child poverty' which, the ALLIANCE observed is "much more ambitious" than the proposed National Outcome. They suggested that one explanation for this apparent difference in approach "might be a recognition of the Government being realistic in its ambitions" for the National Outcomes as it does not have all the levers to eradicate poverty. As such—
we sometimes need less ambition and more recognition of the genuine limitations of devolution, rather than over promising and then perpetuating the implementation gap...5
Several respondents raised concerns regarding the absence of a dedicated National Outcome on gender equality, suggesting that, despite improvements in integrating gendered considerations across the Outcomes, the lack of a dedicated Outcome on gender equality misses an opportunity to achieve greater alignment with the SDGs and weakens the focus on gender-specific issues. Some such as the SWBG expressed concerns that its absence may further accelerate the evaporation of gender in the framing of equalities. Engender in its submission explained that “a dedicated National Outcome on Gender Equality is needed to directly translate the original ambition of SDG 5 into the NPF and avoid the pitfalls of a homogenised approach to tackling inequality."7
WEAS considered that, given the proposed National Outcomes do not include a dedicated Outcome on gender equality that is equivalent to SDG 5, further clarity is needed about how gender equality feeds into the other outcomes, and indicators must be segregated by gender and in different ways so that those outcomes can be checked.8
The SHRC consider that the proposed National Outcomes could align well with the SDGs but called for more explicit linking between each outcome and relevant SDG goal within that Outcome’s narrative (along with suitable targets and indicators) to enhance coherence and accountability.8 Oxfam Scotland state that the lack of clear targets “frustrates evaluation of Scotland’s contribution to the SDGs and any judgement on whether Scotland’s NPF tracks the SDGs in its ambition, not just its themes.”10
In evidence, Carnegie UK noted the suggestion from the Scottish Government that alignment of the National Outcomes with the SDGs "is a good thing". They explain, however, that alignment is only a good thing if it is meaningful and that the Scottish Government should not shy away from a more sophisticated accountability environment, because—
if bodies such as local authorities simply have to demonstrate that they are aligning their policies with the NPF, that is another version of a tick-box exercise.8
In evidence, the Cabinet Secretary stated that the proposed National Outcomes (including the proposed new dedicated Outcome on Care) represents a more explicit focus on gender. She stated that “there has been a lot of work to ensure that there is a more gendered approach to the national performance framework.”12
In relation to the proposed National Outcome to 'reduce poverty' the Cabinet Secretary explained that the aim is to ensure 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”. The Cabinet Secretary confirmed that the First Minister has been very clear about the ambition to eradicate child poverty, adding that—
In any case, this is something that I am open to reconsidering.12
The Committee queried whether one of the difficulties in fully aligning the National Outcomes with the UNSDGs is that the NPF is about setting goals against which progress is measured whereas the UNSDG approach is more "a call to action" across nations, with funding pots set against them and actions that aim to align activity. The Cabinet Secretary agreed that there is a distinction between these aims which can make reporting on the Outcomes challenging —
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.12
We acknowledge that there is a difference between the UNSDGs which are a universal call for action for all nations and the NPF which translates the UNSDGs into National Outcomes and a vision for Scotland. Given this, we invite the Scottish Government to consider how progress towards the UNSDGs can be better and more transparently evidenced through the NPF, especially where there is no equivalent UNSDG such as in relation to gender equality. Our earlier recommendation for a more consultative approach to developing National Indicators should help in this regard.
We agree with witnesses that there is a mismatch between the proposed National Outcome to 'reduce poverty' and the UNSDG and the First Minister's priority which each seek to eradicate poverty. We recommend that this mismatch is addressed in the final National Outcomes so as to provide a clearer and more coherent focus for this Outcome.
The Scottish Government approach to consultation
As noted earlier in this report, the Act sets out that the Scottish Government, as part of its review of National Outcomes, must lay in Parliament a report describing the consultation it has carried out, the representations it received and how they have been taken account of.
As part of the Scottish Government's consultation to inform its 2018 review of the National Outcomes a range of public consultation events were held on what kind of Scotland people would like to live in. This was carried out in Phase 1 by the Carnegie UK Trust - who undertook 20 public discussion groups in 16 locations across Scotland- and Oxfam Scotland - who ran 10 'street stalls' across Scotland in affluent and deprived areas, based on the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Additionally, the Children’s Parliament was commissioned to engage the views of children. The design and implementation of all this work was undertaken between December 2016 and May 2017 in partnership with the Scottish Government's National Performance Framework Team. Phase 2 of the consultation was undertaken by the Scottish Government and entailed a number of discussions with experts. 1
For its second review, the Scottish Government’s consultation aimed to build on the 2018 review, primarily considering the National Outcomes, but also considering the purpose, vision, name and presentation of the NPF and its implementation and data. The consultation and engagement phase of the Scottish Government’s review consisted of four strands:
a. Desk-based research (34 sources including from existing citizen engagement exercises, community action plans and undertaking the discovery phase for the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill – focussing on the implementation gap).
b. Online consultation, (87 responses)
c. Call for evidence (125 responses), and
d. Expert Stakeholder workshops (to focus on specific areas e.g. homelessness, care and the implementation gap with 110 stakeholders attending 11 meetings).
The Review Document explains that, given the depth and significance of engagement projects undertaken in recent years, the Scottish Government decided that these activities offered an opportunity for the review to gather data and feed in views on what matters to people in Scotland. The benefit of this approach was that it included "as many voices as possible in the review, without risking further 'consultation fatigue' and maximising efficient use of resources."2
Respondents to the joint Committee consultation had mixed views on the approach taken by the Scottish Government to its consultation. Some respondents felt that the consultation process was thorough and inclusive, that a broad range of perspectives were considered, and that the proposed National Outcomes demonstrate that feedback from the consultation process had been considered and absorbed.
Others, however, highlighted concerns about how meaningful the Scottish Government’s consultation process had been as well as its scope. Dr Max French’s submission describes the Scottish Government’s approach as being “narrow in scope, limited in the opportunities provided for participation, and poorly resourced”. He added that its approach did not reflect good practice examples of consultation on national wellbeing goals seen in other legislatures, which included “searching, large-scale participative processes and national dialogues that are set out over a long period of time to engage all sectors of society in setting national outcome goals.”3
Dr Max French, WEAS and others also highlighted concerns regarding the level of resourcing afforded to the consultation process particularly given the criticisms raised in 2018. As the SHRC explained—
If the NPF is to be our vision for Scotland, everybody’s views have to be part of it. The NPF team did its best with the data that was available, but the team should have been afforded better resources to show the Scottish Government’s commitment to the process.3
It was suggested that not investing in a more meaningful consultation with citizens represented a missed opportunity—
to increase awareness of the NPF and its legitimacy, and
to build collective ownership and "common ground" as effective, long term Outcomes that are comprehensively agreed "such that they are not seen as the government's outcomes".3
Several respondents to the joint Committee consultation highlighted concerns about the demographic split of those consulted by the Scottish Government and that the responses received were not fully disaggregated in the Review Document. WEAS also explained that those people most impacted by the current economic system, are "Often not the people who respond to an online consultation form, so you have to go to them...". SHRC added that a large proportion of people, particularly in remote and rural Scotland, also do not have the right access to be able to participate in online consultations.3
The Scottish Women’s Convention’s (SWC) submission states that there appear to be significant gaps apparent in the Scottish Government’s desk-based approach to using community action plans. They explain that, though the Scottish Government has gathered views from various locales, some “key locations” such as the Western Isles have been missed and that only one of the action plans analysed, Mercat Cross and City Centre (Stirling), includes the views of those residing within a Scottish city.7
Many respondents welcomed the report commissioned by the Scottish Government from the Children’s Parliament reviewing their work from 2018 to 2023 in the context of the NPF. However, the response from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland states that this is not “a substitute for direct participation of children in developing the National Outcomes” and that “children’s views should have been actively considered in the development of all outcomes, not just those solely referring to them.”8 Age Scotland is supportive of the efforts to include children’s voices in the review. They note, however, that there was no comparable effort to ensure that older people’s voices were equally heard such as through a themed workshop.9
The SWBG note in their submission that, owing to the absence of disaggregated responses in the consultation document, there is no information about how representative the responses are, who has provided responses, or if there are differences in comments made by different groups.10 WEAS also commented on this issue, recommending in their submission that future consultations must reflect Scotland’s demographics, and that fully disaggregated data on the engagement process should be published in order to increase public trust in the consultation process.11
The Cabinet Secretary challenged the suggestion that the consultation on the proposed National Outcomes should have been broader, stating that the Scottish Government strives for a “streamlined and focused approach, which is ultimately much easier to embed and much easier to measure.”12
As we comment elsewhere in this report, the Scottish Government's decision not to include more direct participatory approaches with citizens was a missed opportunity to explore what the optimal number of Outcomes should be, to raise the profile of the National Performance Framework and to better ensure that those traditionally furthest from the policy process have an opportunity to contribute. The lack of detailed disaggregated data about the responses it received also limits the ability to assess, including through Parliamentary scrutiny, how representative the evidence gathered by the Scottish Government is. This matters, given as confirmed by the Cabinet Secretary, "changes have only been recommended where there is strong evidence."12
As the Scottish Government explains, the NPF is a national wellbeing framework which provides a framework for collaboration and planning of policy and services across the whole spectrum of Scotland's civic society. Given this importance direct participatory approaches with citizens should have been included, particularly as the Scottish Government's own vision for public participation "is that people can be involved in the decisions that affect them, making Scotland a more inclusive, sustainable and successful place."14 We are unconvinced by the Scottish Government's contention that using the views of people provided at previous events or engagement projects, and not specifically connected to the NPF, is an adequate alternative to directly engaging with citizens on the NPF.
We therefore recommend that the Scottish Government reviews its consultation approaches to the National Outcome reviews undertaken in 2018 and again in 2023, along with the evidence provided during Parliamentary consideration, and establishes minimum consultation standards for subsequent reviews of the National Outcomes. We recommend that, as part of the minimum standards for consultation, participatory approaches with citizens should be included along with a requirement to publish disaggregated data on those consulted as part of future reviews. This approach should enable the Scottish Government to better identify any gaps in representation which can then be targeted more effectively in subsequent review consultations.
Implementation
As the Scottish Government explains "the NPF is not only a framework for its delivery partners, but in its simplest form, is a written set of outcomes, supported by their extended definitions that must be written in language that is accessible to all policy services in Scotland. This ensures that evidence-based policy that will allow Scotland to meet these outcomes can be implemented in a way that everybody understands."1
In its 2022 NPF report the Committee made a number of recommendations aimed at making more sustained progress towards achieving the NPF vision and to ensure its ambitions are translated into action. Those recommendations included a more systematic approach to the implementation of the next iteration of the NPF, including consulting on that plan as part of the next review of the National Outcomes.2
The then DFM agreed with this recommendation and, as part of its statutory review of the National Outcomes, the Scottish Government sought views on how to improve implementation of the NPF. It received 874 consultation comments related to the ‘Implementation Gap’ - that is the gap between policy expectations and the actual outcome. These were focussed around the five key themes of Policy, Delivery, Funding, Legislation and Accountability. The Review Document set out that “analysis of the implementation gap of the National Outcomes noted several common barriers including policy coherence, a complex reporting landscape, difficulties embedding the NPF in practice as a driver of change, and dissatisfaction with current funding models.”3
The Review Document explains that the Scottish Government is committed to working with a wide range of stakeholders throughout the development of its implementation plan and which will be published alongside its final National Outcomes. It sets out how the plan will be informed by evidence and developed in order to set out “a route for change”. 3
Responses to the joint Committee call for views highlighted the need for a robust implementation plan and accountability to ensure there are tangible improvements. This includes detailed action plans specifying the steps needed to achieve each outcome as well as metrics to monitor progress and evaluate success. The implementation gap remains a significant concern amongst respondents.
Dr Max French explained in his submission that, whilst the NPF is internationally recognised, it has "lacked a credible - or even discernible - implementation strategy...since its founding in 2007." He expressed frustration that, despite good examples of implementation plans in use in Wales (with its wellbeing goals) and elsewhere such as the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the NPF still relies on "attracting or convincing others to pay attention to it".5
He and others, such as Carnegie UK, therefore advocated for a mix of 'carrot and stick' approaches - as they did in our 2022 NPF inquiry. This includes coercive statutory duties, performance incentives and public scrutiny measures ('hard powers') that sit alongside encouragement ('soft powers') to ensure the effective integration of the NPF. Carnegie UK stated that "we remain of the view that without improved legislative underpinnings and associated accountabilities, an improvement plan alone is unlikely to be effective."6
A number of those providing evidence (including the SHRC and Carnegie UK) highlighted the importance of the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill to improving the effectiveness of the NPF. Carnegie UK explained that a future generations approach (such as that proposed in the Scottish Government's Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill) is necessary to achieving wellbeing and should be based on "long-term thinking, that is collaborative and reaches across silos, that can effectively resolve trade-offs and deal with complexity, and that considers impacts both local and global."6
The Committee heard how, as a driver of decision-making, the National Outcomes are too weak such that “we are not seeing the national performance framework really driving alignment and activity in Scottish public bodies". We were also told that the current duty 'to have regard to' the National Outcomes is "not really worth the paper that it is written on.”8 The much stronger duty in the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and its specified ways of working, was highlighted as driving decision-making in Wales in relation to their wellbeing outcomes. Some witnesses, such as the ALLIANCE and OAS, therefore called for current duty 'to have regard to' to be strengthened to ensure full compliance by public bodies, and to provide 'teeth' or the resourcing to ensure the NPF is used.9
The WEAS and others support the provision of a Commissioner (proposed in the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill) as the best way to provide a central long-term view, not currently provided in Scotland. Such a Commissioner could also provide stability (compared with the churn in civil servants), a "helicopter view" and can "see what is happening and who can also be the grit in the system."
Amongst the other areas identified to us for inclusion within the proposed implementation plan were calls for—
Clear, timebound targets (with milestones) and indicators for each National Outcome to measure progress, and resources, and to support organisations understanding of it;
A strong communications strategy to ensure the Outcomes are more solidified in the nation's consciousness (with more regular communication on progress thereafter);
Setting out how the outcomes support each other to increase policy coherence as well as recognising the tensions that can arise between National Outcomes;
A named lead contact for each National Outcome within the Scottish Government to help facilitate connections between policy makers and those outwith government;
Clear identification of the actions that the Scottish Government will take to embed its use (such as the identification of its use within its legislation, strategies and policies as we recommend at paragraph 55);
Clear definitions of wellbeing, and sustainable development; and;
Confirmation of how the outcomes will be funded.
The Cabinet Secretary was encouraged by the stakeholder suggestions of ways the Scottish Government can improve the NPF, and "lead with a stronger, more impactful framework." She explained that a key part of the implementation plan is to ensure that Parliament is sighted on how "we are doing things and what we are doing."10
Responding to the requests that the 'have regard to' duty be strengthened the Cabinet Secretary confirmed that the First Minister has been taking a more 'stick' approach during his tenure; for example - by reforming the delivery function. The First Minister has tasked a team with "focussing almost entirely on delivery. The same team owns the national performance framework." Scottish Government officials also confirmed that the implementation plan will need to include "how we highlight case studies, good practice and so on, including in relation to local government."10
Many of the issues regarding implementation of the NPF have been raised repeatedly in recent years, including in our previous report, and responses to both the Scottish Government and joint Committee consultations on the proposed National Outcomes. The creation of an implementation plan to support the final National Outcomes is therefore a welcome change in approach but only if it focusses on how the NPF should be used by the Scottish Government and by others. We recommend that the items listed above at paragraph 147 are addressed within the implementation plan.
We note that the Scottish Government has committed to provide a communication plan "to raise awareness of the framework and its approach" as part of publishing the reviewed NPF.12
As the Scottish Government recognises, its approach has been "more carrot than stick" when it comes to the use of the NPF to influence policy making and delivery. Whilst we acknowledge the changed focus on delivery as described by the Cabinet Secretary, we consider that a greater step change is needed if the ambitions of the NPF are to be delivered. Our recommendations in the next section relating to enhanced accountability will support greater scrutiny of progress towards delivering the National Outcomes.
Joined-up Decision Making
How the National Outcomes influence decision-making was a key focus of the Committee’s 2022 NPF report. The Committee found that the NPF is not seen as explicitly or transparently driving financial decisions by the Government nor for holding organisations to account for spending funding effectively. 1This finding is also reflected in the evidence we received as part of this review.
Dr Max French noted in his submission to the joint Committee consultation that, based on his recent research with Carnegie UK, "we could not find a single case where the National Outcomes and Indicators were actively used (not just passively referenced/aligned to) in the design appraisal or evaluation of a Scottish Government national policy or strategy."2
A core part of the Committee’s 2022 NPF report recommendations was that there should be a 'golden thread' from the NPF through all other frameworks, strategies, and plans to delivery on the ground. The Committee added that “the current approach whereby the NPF is sometimes seen as "implicit" in policy development and delivery does not reflect the status or importance the Scottish Government, COSLA and others consider it should have.”1
Responding to our 2022 NPF Report, the Scottish Government recognised the challenges and committed to publish a set of resources alongside the next iteration of the NPF that will better explain and showcase how it can be used in policy development and delivery. The then Deputy First Minister also explained how its then proposed Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill would seek to embed wellbeing and sustainable development principles in decision-making and "To achieve this, the proposed Bill may require duties to be placed on Scottish Ministers, public bodies and local authorities, which clarify the extent to which they can be systematically and consistently held to account for their contribution towards National Outcomes."4
We heard calls for a range of actions to be taken in order to ensure the National Outcomes support more joined up decision-making. That includes, as WEAS proposed, a stronger decision-making framework through the proposed Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill and clear definitions of wellbeing and sustainable development. Dr Max French called for improved integration with the public administration systems in Scotland as has been seen in Wales and elsewhere. He considered that - as has been the case in Wales - when it comes to improving decision-making using the NPF "we can provide that level of detail, consistency and policy coherence by taking seriously our wellbeing framework..."5
National Outcomes and Budgets
Some witnesses, such as Audit Scotland, highlighted that “Currently, it is not clear how budgeted spending which is working towards shared wellbeing outcomes fits together”. The SHRC has undertaken work to understand which National Outcomes and which human rights frameworks are relevant to different Government departments and reflect that in the budget but found that "it feels as though we see what those impacts might be after the fact - after the decisions have been made." Stirling Council considered that "we probably don't know how much it costs to achieve the outcomes" which is where outcomes-based accountability can help.1 The SWBG also highlighted the opportunity costs and the wider costs to wellbeing that arise when the National Outcomes are not prioritised in spending decisions.1
Carnegie UK recognised that it can be challenging to align budgets to the National Outcomes with one of the impediments being the system of accountability in Scotland. It was suggested that for any public servant this is about their accountability for the expenditure of money and "There is a misalignment between what people feel held to accountable for and the long term vision."3
The Committee explored how the NPF influences budgets with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Shona Robison MSP, stating—
The areas are rated red, amber, green, and we have a monthly session—if I am remembering rightly—during which we dive into areas of the national performance framework, particularly those areas that are have a red or amber rating. The read across to the budget is that we can consider what that tells us about delivery in that area and whether it is a funding issue.4
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government explained how the PfG sets out the key priorities which then guide "what receives priority in the budget hierarchy." She added that "You would expect the national performance framework to be very closely aligned with the programme for government objectives, because if it was not, that would be a bit of an issue."4
The Scottish Budget 2024-25 itself sets out the national outcomes (primary and secondary) to which spend in certain portfolio areas is intended to contribute. Annexe E in the Budget document highlights that the Scottish Government is redesigning its approach to internal performance reporting, drawing on the mandate letters and strategic delivery plans for each portfolio. This, it states, will “inform the performance reporting and monitoring necessary to align the commitments with the Programme for Government, with the Budget, through to the Prospectus and ultimately the NPF, bringing the data necessary to measure Scottish Government’s progress towards the National Outcomes”.6
In our Budget Report for 2024-25 we sought further details from the Scottish Government about this redesign of its approach to internal performance reporting, including a timeline for when the agreed approach will be implemented. Responding in February 2024 the then Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government explained that "Alongside the Review of National Outcomes – which will be laid before Parliament in the spring - we are considering how to measure our contribution to the delivery of the National Outcomes."7
A framework for collaboration
As the Review Document states, the NPF has several functions including that “it provides a framework for collaboration and planning of policy and services across the whole spectrum of Scotland’s civic society, including public and private sectors, voluntary organisations, businesses and communities.” Carnegie UK in their submission noted that "challenging protectionist behaviours, extending accountabilities beyond single services and organisations, and finding ways to span organisation, financial and political boundaries are all needed to fulfil the NPF's vision."1
The SHRC also highlighted how linking the National Outcomes to legal obligations can "put a spotlight on accountability and I get the feeling that that is where the commitment is missing."2 They suggested that accountability may have also been diluted with the move toward the NPF becoming Scotland's goals rather than just the Government's as was the case in 2007 and that—
It is really helpful to understand the contributory theory of change in that regard. The Government, local authorities, public bodies, businesses and civil society all have a role— everybody has a role—in delivery, but we need to know what the Government’s role is. It needs to set out its stall by saying what it is delivering towards achieving the outcomes, so that it can be held accountable for that. That is where there is a gap.2
Volunteer Scotland also highlighted that there is the role for elected representatives in elevating the prominence of the NPF through referring back to the NPF and National Outcomes on a regular basis in order to hold the Government to account.4
The Cabinet Secretary explained that the NPF is a vision that we want to deliver but "it sets out an end destination that we want to get to and it cannot replace the political day-to-day decision making that is required....we still have difficult decisions to take, which can sometimes be between good and better, not good and bad."5
She identified two big drivers of the short-term decision-making - annual budget setting as well as the short-term challenges with which the Government has been grappling such as the Covid pandemic and cost of living crisis. The Cabinet Secretary explained that, previously as the Finance Cabinet Secretary, she was responsible for the NPF and —
In a sense, the budget is the area where it is easiest to build on the national performance framework...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.5
The Cabinet Secretary explained that there is tension inherent in the NPF in that it cannot achieve, by itself, all the aims of the National Outcomes—
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.5
As we heard delivering the National Outcomes will require a collaborative effort, however, this presents challenges when it comes to scrutinising individual organisations or Government for their performance. Accountability and performance scrutiny measures are an important 'stick' in ensuring the NPF is actively used to inform policy and spending decisions. In our 2022 NPF report we recognised this challenge and recommended that the next NPF review should consider the extent to which the Scottish Government, local government and others should be more systematically and consistently held to account for their contribution towards the National Outcomes.
We therefore seek confirmation from the Scottish Government that its implementation plan will set out how the Scottish Government, Local Government, and others across Scotland, should evidence how their work specifically contributes toward delivering on the National Outcomes. This visibility will be important in ensuring that scrutiny can be more effectively and fairly delivered given the collaboration necessary to deliver the proposed National Outcomes.
In successive reports the Committee has repeatedly recommended that there needs to be a clearer link between spending decisions in the Scottish Budget and their impact on the delivery of National Outcomes. Noting the Cabinet Secretary's comments that "the budget is the area where it is easiest to build on the national performance framework" we request an update from the Scottish Government on the redesign of its approach to informing performance reporting and monitoring to align budget decisions with the PfG and the NPF. We also seek confirmation that the outcomes from this redesigned performance reporting will be published.
Annexe A: Table of proposed National Outcomes alongside current National Outcomes
| Proposed National Outcome title | Proposed National Outcome | Current National Outcome (text in bold indicates the current title of the National Outcome) |
|---|---|---|
| Children and Young People | We grow up loved, safe and respected and every single one of us can realise our full potential | We grow up loved, safe and respected so that we realise our full potential. |
| Communities | We live in communities that are connected, inclusive, empowered, resilient and safe | We live in Communities that are inclusive, empowered, resilient and safe. |
| Culture | We are creative and our vibrant and diverse cultures are expressed and enjoyed widely | We are creative and our vibrant and diverse cultures are expressed and enjoyed widely |
| Wellbeing economy and fair work | We have a competitive, entrepreneurial economy that is fair, green and growing, with thriving businesses and industry and fair work for everyone | Economy: We have a globally competitive, entrepreneurial, inclusive and sustainable economyFair work and Business: We have thriving and innovative businesses, with quality jobs and fair work for everyone |
| Education and Learning | We are well educated, have access to high quality learning throughout our lives and are able to contribute to society | Education: We are well educated, skilled and able to contribute to society |
| Environment | We actively protect, restore, enhance and enjoy our natural environment | We value, enjoy, protect and enhance our environment |
| Equality and Human Rights | We respect, protect and fulfil human rights and live free from discrimination | Human Rights: We respect, protect and fulfil human rights and live free from discrimination |
| Health | We are mentally and physically healthy and active | We are healthy and active |
| International | We are connected, open, show leadership and make a positive contribution globally. | We are open, connected and make a positive contribution internationally |
| Reduce Poverty | We tackle poverty by sharing opportunities, wealth and power more equally | Poverty: We tackle poverty by sharing opportunities, wealth and power more equally |
| Climate Action | We live sustainably, achieve a just transition to net zero and build Scotland’s resilience to climate change | No equivalent National Outcome |
| Housing | We live in safe, high-quality and affordable homes that meet our needs | No equivalent National Outcome |
| Care | We are cared for as we need throughout our lives and value all those providing care | No equivalent National Outcome |
Annexe B - Parliamentary Committee outputs
The following Committees published their views on the proposed National Outcomes in the outputs as noted below:
Letter from the Education, Children and Young People Committee, 17 September 2024
Letter from the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 3 October 2024
Letter from the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, 10 October 2024
Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee Report, National Outcomes: Response to the Review of Outcomes and Indicators relating to the Scottish Government's International Work, 29 October 2024
Letter from the Economy and Fair Work Committee, 30 October 2024
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee report, National Performance Framework: proposed National Outcomes considered by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 4 November 2024
Letter from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 6 November 2024
Letter from the Criminal Justice Committee, agreed at its meeting on 6 November 2024
Letter from the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 12 November 2024
Letter from the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, (currently under consideration).
Annexe C - Extracts from the Minutes of Finance and Public Administration Committee Meetings
26th meeting 2024 (Session 6), Tuesday 17 September 2024
2. National Performance Framework: Inquiry into proposed National Outcomes: The Committee took evidence from—
Sarah Davidson, Chief Executive, Carnegie UK;
Dr Max French, Assistant Professor, Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University;
Dr Alison Hosie, Research Officer, Scottish Human Rights Commission;
Lukas Bunse, Policy and Engagement Lead, Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland;
27th meeting 2024 (Session 6), Tuesday 1 October 2024
3. National Performance Framework: Inquiry into proposed National Outcomes : The Committee took evidence in a roundtable format from—
Allan Faulds, Senior Policy Officer, Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland (the ALLIANCE);
Dr Shoba John, Head, Obesity Action Scotland;
Carmen Martinez, Policy and Engagement Lead, Scottish Women's Budget Group;
Adam Boey, Business Planning and Performance Manager, Stirling Council;
Sarah Latto, Senior Policy Officer, Volunteer Scotland.
28th meeting 2024 (Session 6), Tuesday 8 October 2024
2. National Performance Framework: Inquiry into proposed National Outcomes: The Committee took evidence from—
Kate Forbes, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic, Keith McDonald, Unit Head, Strategy Division and Katie Allison, Analytical Unit Head, Central Analysis Division, Scottish Government.
31st meeting 2024 (Session 6), Tuesday 12 November 2024
2. National Performance Framework: Inquiry into proposed National Outcomes (in private): The Committee considered and agreed a draft report and agreed the arrangements for its publication.
Annexe D - Evidence
Official Reports (substantially verbatim transcripts) of meetings of the Finance and Public Administration Committee
17 September 2024: evidence from stakeholders
1 October 2024: evidence from stakeholders
8 October 2024: evidence from the Scottish Government
Written submissions
The joint Committee consultation received the following written submissions to the call for views issued as part of Committee scrutiny of the proposed National Outcomes:
Aberdeen City Health and Social Care Partnership
Audit Scotland on behalf of the Auditor General for Scotland and the Accounts Commission
Built Environment Forum Scotland
Children and Young People's Centre for Justice
Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland
Construction Industry Training Board
East Ayrshire Health and Social Care Partnership
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Federation of Small Businesses Scotland
Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland (the ALLIANCE)
NHS National Services Scotland
Scotland's International Development Alliance
Scottish Animal Welfare Commission
Scottish Human Rights Commission
Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care
The Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland
Sources
The Scottish Government. (2024, May 1). Consultation with Parliament in connection with the Review of National Outcomes. Retrieved from <a href="https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/information-hub/consultation-parliament-connection-review-national-outcomes" target="_blank">https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/information-hub/consultation-parliament-connection-review-national-outcomes</a> [accessed 24 October 2024]
The Scottish Government. (2018). The National Performance Framework. Retrieved from <a href="https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/about/what-it" target="_blank">https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/about/what-it</a> [accessed 23 October 2024]
The Finance and Public Administration Committee. (2022, October 3). Report on the National Performance Framework: Ambitions into Action. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-finance-and-public-administration-committee/business-items/national-performance-framework-ambitions-into-action" target="_blank">https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-finance-and-public-administration-committee/business-items/national-performance-framework-ambitions-into-action</a> [accessed 24 October 2024]
The Scottish Government. (2022, December 16). Response to the Report on the National Performance Framework: Ambitions into Action. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-finance-and-public-administration-committee/correspondence/2022/national-performance-framework-scottish-government-response" target="_blank">https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-finance-and-public-administration-committee/correspondence/2022/national-performance-framework-scottish-government-response</a> [accessed 24 October 2024]
Finance and Public Administration Committee. (2024, October 1). Official Report. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/FPA-01-10-2024?meeting=16034" target="_blank">https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/FPA-01-10-2024?meeting=16034</a> [accessed 24 October 2024]
Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce. (2024). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=625433395" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=625433395</a> [accessed 24 October 2024]
Finance and Public Administration Committee. (2024, September 17). Official Report. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/FPA-17-09-2024?meeting=16004" target="_blank">https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/FPA-17-09-2024?meeting=16004</a> [accessed 24 October 2024]
Finance and Public Administration Committee. (2024, October 8). Official Report. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/FPA-08-10-2024?meeting=16043" target="_blank">https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/FPA-08-10-2024?meeting=16043</a> [accessed 24 October 2024]
The Scottish Government. (2024, October 31). Thematic Gender Review of the National Performance Framework. Retrieved from <a href="https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/information-hub/thematic-gender-review-national-performance-framework" target="_blank">https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/information-hub/thematic-gender-review-national-performance-framework</a> [accessed 1 November 2024]
Aberdeen City Council. (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=757500260" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=757500260</a> [accessed 24 October 2024]
The Scottish Government. (2024, July 10). Equality Impact Assessment - Review of the National Outcomes. Retrieved from <a href="https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/information-hub/equality-impact-assessment-review-national-outcomes#:~:text=This%20assessment%20has%20identified%20a,many%20of%20the%20extended%20definitions." target="_blank">https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/information-hub/equality-impact-assessment-review-national-outcomes#:~:text=This%20assessment%20has%20identified%20a,many%20of%20the%20extended%20definitions.</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
Scottish Women's Budget Group. (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=697460648" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=697460648</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland (the ALLIANCE). (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=1037671278" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=1037671278</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
Scottish Parliament Information Centre. (2018, April 12). National Outcomes Consultation 2018. Retrieved from <a href="https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2018/4/12/National-Outcomes-Consultation-2018#" target="_blank">https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2018/4/12/National-Outcomes-Consultation-2018#</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
Joint response from Citizens Advice Scotland, Churches Action for the Homeless, Crisis, Cyrenians, Homeless Network Scotland, I-SPHERE, Legal Services Agency, Poverty Alliance, Rock Trust, Salvation Army, Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, Turning Point Scotland. (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=561239486" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=561239486</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
Inclusion Scotland. (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=944092731" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=944092731</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
Engender. (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=185249443" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=185249443</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
Oxfam Scotland. (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=219850182" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=219850182</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
Scottish Parliament Information Center (SPICe). (2018). National Outcomes Consultation 2018. Retrieved from <a href="https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2018/4/12/National-Outcomes-Consultation-2018" target="_blank">https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2018/4/12/National-Outcomes-Consultation-2018</a> [accessed 28 October 2024]
Scottish Womens Convention. (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=728858005" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=728858005</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland. (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=93881868" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=93881868</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
Age Scotland. (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=11899983" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=11899983</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland. (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=972710347" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=972710347</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
The Scottish Government . (2024, March 13). Participation Handbook. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2024/03/participation-handbook/documents/participation-handbook/participation-handbook/govscot%3Adocument/participation-handbook.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2024/03/participation-handbook/documents/participation-handbook/participation-handbook/govscot%3Adocument/participation-handbook.pdf</a> [accessed 28 October 2024]
Dr Max French. (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=1060503986" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=1060503986</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
Carnegie UK. (2024, June 28). Written submission. Retrieved from <a href="https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=718098140" target="_blank">https://yourviews.parliament.scot/finance/proposals-for-revised-national-outcomes/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=718098140</a> [accessed 30 October 2024]
The Scottish Government. (2023, December 19). Scottish Budget: 2024 to 2025. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-budget-2024-25/pages/18/" target="_blank">https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-budget-2024-25/pages/18/</a> [accessed 4 November 2024]
The Scottish Government. (2024, February 16). Response to the Finance and Public Administration Committee Report on the Scottish Budget 2024-25. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/finance-and-public-administration-committee/correspondence/2024/budget_dfmtoconvener_16feb24.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/finance-and-public-administration-committee/correspondence/2024/budget_dfmtoconvener_16feb24.pdf</a> [accessed 4 November 2024]