Official Report 397KB pdf
Let us take one of those national indicators—to increase the rate of new house building. Despite the Government’s efforts in relation to the council house building programme, there is not the remotest prospect of the rate of new house building increasing in this parliamentary session. In fact, the rate of new house building has declined dramatically as a result of the economic situation. Is that not the case?
Thank you, convener, and good morning. I welcome this opportunity to discuss the development of single outcome agreements and their contribution to bringing about positive change for people and communities throughout Scotland. The agreements, along with the first set of single outcome agreement annual reports that councils have produced, reflect a fundamental shift in how public services in Scotland are organised, and that shift promises better outcomes and better accountability.
Okay. Does the Government think that the national indicators and targets that underpin the outcomes are still valid in view of the changed financial and economic situation since the concordat was drawn up?
Yes. Without exaggerating, it is fair to say that hundreds of indicators could have been selected to judge performance in the national performance framework. I concede that the exercise was subjective. Ministers established a set of desirable national outcomes, of which there are 15 in the concordat, as Mr McLetchie correctly said. Those were also set out in the Government’s performance framework and in the 2007 spending review. Ministers considered which indicators—some of them very measurable and some less measurable—would enable the assessment of performance against the national outcomes, and we settled on them as national indicators. We will maintain those national indicators throughout the term of this performance framework.
So we can have a realistic re-evaluation about the pie-in-the-sky aspiration to have everybody in primary 1 to 3 in class sizes of less than 18 by 2011, but we cannot have realism in relation to pie-in-the-sky national indicators about increasing the rate of new house building. One is a consequence of the changed economic situation, and so is the other. Why change one but not the other?
I do not see any reason why we should not remain aspirational about the targets and aims that we are trying to achieve across the board in Scotland as a consequence of a number of policy interventions.
We had a recent round-table evidence session on the changing situation, how the recession might affect local government and give it additional challenges, and how it will meet those challenges. At that session, Professor Alexander suggested that the Scottish Government should renegotiate the concordat and the single outcome agreements and import into that process a way of measuring and driving efficiency. Many of us agree with the aspirations in the single outcome agreements in relation to drugs and so on, but there is a question whether single outcome agreements are the drivers to deliver the outcomes that you referred to in your opening remarks. Did your recent discussion with COSLA amount to a renegotiation to ensure that measuring and monitoring take place to determine outcomes?
Comprehensive performance measurement information is available. As I said in my opening remarks, local authorities have published reports on how they have developed and delivered on their single outcome agreements for 2008-09.
But the point has been made not only by academics such as Professor Alexander. In its report “An overview of local government in Scotland 2009”, the Accounts Commission highlights failures in defining and measuring outcomes and re-emphasises the need for improvements in performance management reporting. How have you addressed such criticisms?
I understand why you prefer the deputy auditor general’s comments to the comments made by the Accounts Commission. You said in your opening remarks that you expected better outcomes and accountability and reduced bureaucracy. On page 17 of its report, the Accounts Commission says:
There is a great deal more alignment now than there was when I came into office.
So is that issue sorted?
Part of the answer is contained in the paragraph that Mr Tolson just read out, which, unless I misheard him, said that we were achieving greater alignment, so I am not sure that I understand where he is coming from.
I appreciate that. I read out the paragraph in question because it showed that there is a balance. I do not deny for a moment that that part of the report highlights that there has been some progress, but my concern is that that progress is quite disjointed and is being made at different paces by different local authorities, with the result that the targets that the Government set in the first place are not near being reached.
The overview report comments that single outcome agreements
We asked authorities to move to a very different way of working very abruptly. I think that I have been in front of the committee before answering that very question, and I have made it clear that I make no apology for driving reform at the pace at which I have driven it. I felt that a move towards a focus on outcomes in the public service in Scotland was an aspiration that, for far too long, had gone unmet as a policy approach. I also felt that there was frustration among the public at the lack of integration of public services at the local level, with members of the public having to join up public services rather than public services being joined up for them. I felt that we had to recognise that there were better ways of working and drawing together the contribution of different public service organisations. In that respect, I think that we have been able to bring together a very different approach to policy making.
I am sorry to have to return to the Accounts Commission report, but it says:
That is fair comment, and I of course expect the committee to examine the report carefully. The committee will not be surprised to hear me say that I, too, consider seriously such reports, which form part of the discussion that will take place on the management and monitoring of community planning partnerships and the approach to single outcome agreements.
As I am sure you are aware, the Accounts Commission report also gives some views about the quality of services. Those make for interesting reading. However, I am pleased that we have moved on, in that you have conceded that you will take those issues into account and that they will be taken seriously.
We have published the report “Single Outcome Agreement Overview Commentary—Progress in 2008-09”. I am certainly considering what the appropriate level of information should be. Obviously, each single outcome agreement will be published annually. Whether the Government needs to provide an annual consolidated overview of all SOAs is a proposal that I will consider.
I will consider the issue as part of the process.
I am certainly confident that fairer Scotland fund resources will be used in a fashion that is appropriate for their purpose. My point about terminology is that different single outcome agreements will have been formulated using different wording, but the substance of what they contain encapsulates how the resources that are available to the partners through the fairer Scotland fund will be used to achieve priorities at the local level.
Mr Doris will see from the various points of analysis that are produced by the Improvement Service and the Accounts Commission in relation to the best-value regime, and from within the health service, that issues such as national outcome 6, which he highlighted, are not just within the province of local authorities but involve activity in the health service and in other public sector and third sector providers. It is therefore clear that examples of good and best practice can be identified and taken forward as examples of how individual authorities or CPPs could develop their services effectively.
I agree that this is not a simple area of analysis. For example, the work of a community planning partnership will involve contributions from an elected local authority that is responsible to its local electorate, a health board that has been appointed by a minister, for which the minister is responsible to Parliament, a fire authority that, in all but one case, is responsible to a board that is comprised of representatives of a multiplicity of local authority areas, and a police authority that, likewise, is, except in one case, responsible to a board that is comprised of representatives of a number of local authorities. Although even in a CPP accountability is spread across a number of areas, crucially there are existing levels of accountability that provide for, for example, a chief constable to be held to account for non-operational matters by his or her police board or a health board chief executive to be held accountable by a board and a minister.
In your meetings with partners such as Audit Scotland, local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, how much time have you spent discussing the need to create the mechanisms for joint accountability that you have just described?
There is a difference between the two areas. I was talking about the point that I thought we were addressing, on a shared services agenda. I accept that there is a set of governance arrangements that have to be developed in accordance with the schemes that emerge in different parts of the country.
Good morning. I am aware from some of the reporting that there have been a number of asks—227, from memory—from local authorities. Have those been responded to positively? I suspect that not all have, because that would be impossible. How many have been responded to positively? How has the whole issue of handling such questions from local government been dealt with?
Is there a list of responses that the committee could consult to get a feel for how things are progressing?
I do not think that we have a published document, but if I find any more information I will be happy to provide it to the committee.
There are 32 community planning partnerships in Scotland—one for each local authority area—and 16 directors in the Scottish Government interact with them. In other words, one director interacts with two partnerships.
I have met some community planning partnerships whose boards include members of the public—they are there as members of the public—although that is not the case in every community planning partnership. One board, if my memory serves me correctly, is chaired by a member of the public as an independent figure.
That paragraph—paragraph 64, I think, in the section on citizen involvement—goes on to say that more work needs to be done.
I was quoting from a different Audit Scotland report.
Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee in 2010. As I normally do at this time, I ask committee members and the public to turn off all mobile phones and BlackBerrys.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. The foundation for single outcome agreements is the not-quite-yet historic concordat. I notice that the Government’s overview commentary on the single outcome agreements for 2008-09 measured the reports by reference to the 15 national outcomes that are set out in the concordat. However, I saw scant reference in the overview to the 45 national indicators and targets that are also mentioned in the concordat and which are meant to underpin the national outcomes. Can we expect to see a report that measures the progress of local authorities by reference to the 45 national indicators and targets that underpin the single outcome agreements and which are set out in the concordat?
It may be a reflection of events and circumstances, but my point is why do we persist in referencing outcomes at local and national level with reference to a framework document that was drawn up in an entirely different set of circumstances, both for the economy and the public finances? Given all that has happened to the economy and public finances since the concordat was signed—there have been changes of a fundamental nature—would it not be appropriate to acknowledge that many of the outcomes and indicators have not the remotest hope of being achieved and instead start afresh from a more realistic basis, rather than continue on the basis of pie-in-the-sky aspirations that have not the slightest hope of being fulfilled?
Perhaps I just have a realistic approach to life, whereas you have an aspirational one. I think that Government targets should be rooted in the realities of what can be achieved rather than being, as I said, pie-in-the-sky aspirations. If you are unwilling to change the indicators or the outcomes, how is it that Mr Russell can tear up sections of the concordat relative to a specified set of commitments?
As always, community planning partnerships will be required to take account of the Accounts Commission’s conclusions. After all, the Accounts Commission is there to provide that kind of advice, and I expect partnerships to respond positively to its views.
I am not saying that the issue is sorted, but the Government has concentrated on the meaningful role and activity of community planning partnerships, which we are encouraging to align public services at local level. That opportunity is clearly highlighted in the paragraph of the report that I just read out, which states:
With the greatest of respect, if you think that I have not taken that on board, you have not listened to what I have said.
I have listened carefully to what you have said.
Good morning, gentlemen. We do not want to keep trading paragraphs—unfortunately, we have almost reached that point—but there is one paragraph that I want to highlight and get your view on. It comments:
Can you say a bit more about means as well as ends? It would be interesting to know whether you believe that the existence of single outcome agreements has in any way changed the attitude of local authorities to how they go about their business.
You mentioned the public’s appreciation of all that. At what stage will the public have before them an easily intelligible assessment of the changes that are taking place and the benefits of those changes, as you have described them? How long a process is required before readily accessible information comes into the public domain? You also mentioned what is already being produced on a day-to-day basis at a statistical level. Can you say a bit more about that, and about how you feel things will develop?
The scale of the challenge of presenting information in a fashion that captures public interest and public attention is not lost on all policy makers. A very wide range of information is available, and reports on performance are available for each single outcome agreement.
You would expect us to take the opportunity of using a public document—published in February 2010—that contains a critique on single outcome agreements. This is our opportunity to do that—we are excluded from the rooms where the cosy discussions take place with the people who are involved. The Accounts Commission report is a public document that raises serious concerns about how the general public are considered and the extent to which they are aware of single outcome agreements, which are a vehicle for spending large chunks of public money.
Throughout my answers today, I have said that the Accounts Commission report will be part of our discussions with COSLA and Audit Scotland, which is part of the group that supervises the implementation of single outcome agreements. It would be a strange discussion for us to have if we were not to reflect on a report that has been published by one of our partners in that group.
When can we expect a decision on that?
Clearly, I have heard those concerns being articulated. Ministers have undertaken discussions with local authorities about the approach that should be taken to the distribution of fairer Scotland fund resources within the work of community planning partnerships, but the community planning partnerships might reflect that differently in the terminology that they use in their single outcome agreements. We have provided advice on the approach that should be taken to the distribution of fairer Scotland fund resources. Obviously, that will be taken forward by community planning partnerships at the local level.
If the issue perhaps revolves around the terminology of how such moneys are referred to, are you confident that the fairer Scotland fund money is being used as envisaged, and that any future concerns can be allayed?
Do you intend to carry out any specific monitoring to ensure that that happens in future?
Finally, do you think that any guidance will be needed, particularly for the transition from ring fencing to non-ring fencing?
We have already provided that advice in our discussions with COSLA. Obviously, the reporting mechanisms are in place to ensure that that approach continues.
I am certainly prepared to consider whether an indicator on shared services might be appropriate. I am not persuaded at this stage that it is, because the Government’s approach is to encourage and motivate different public bodies to co-operate in the field of shared services. I do not think that it would be particularly constructive for us to compel or require that. A number of substantial discussions are taking place. For example, a substantial discussion is under way in the west of Scotland with the different authorities that have co-operated to commission Sir John Arbuthnott’s review. Obviously, there is an active discussion in that respect, which I welcome and very much support. Whether we translate that into a shared services indicator is a different matter, but I will consider that point.
I want to begin with my own local authority, Glasgow City Council, and then make a more general point.
Okay. My terminology let me down slightly. I of course acknowledge the wider stakeholders who are involved in single outcome agreements. I did not mean to narrow it down to individual local authorities. I am happy to set the record straight on that. However, I still think that it would be good for one body to take responsibility for pointing out where there is good practice among all stakeholders so that other CPPs could learn from that. I ask the cabinet secretary to consider that point.
We look forward to seeing it.
Such discussion must take place as the discussions about relevant structures take place. Proposals have been made, such as the Clyde valley proposal on which Sir John Arbuthnott has been working.
I realise that, just because a lot of people ask the same question, it does not mean that it is the right question or that it should be considered positively, but are good ideas coming forward in the form of those asks? The suggestion to continue the town centre regeneration fund, for example, is good, although I am not necessarily suggesting that the cabinet secretary thinks that it is a good idea. If a number of authorities or community planning partnerships ask for moneys or provision that could be rolled out across the country, will the cabinet secretary take that into consideration? How would you assess asks of that sort?
That would be helpful.
Each community planning partnership is based around the local authority area and formal discussions are structured at that level.
An issue that comes up again and again is the role of the community in each of the 32 community planning partnerships. With regard to the partnerships, the various papers refer to statutory bodies; you have talked about local authorities, police forces, fire services and the health service, although I have to say that I am surprised that you have not mentioned Scottish Enterprise. How do community groups, which would include the local voluntary sector, residents and tenants associations and so on tie in with the community planning partnership structure? As I understand it, the whole thing was supposed to be driven by demands from the community. If it is based on local authority structures, how can we address the issues that are of highest priority for the communities that the single outcome agreements are supposed to serve? Glasgow, for example, covers a tight geographical area and has well-defined communities, whereas in the Highlands, which you have just referred to, a number of communities are spread over the whole north of Scotland. How do those communities engage with community planning partnerships to try to shape and influence delivery of the services that are most needed within the single outcome agreement priorities?
I thank the cabinet secretary for those remarks.
Up-to-date performance information on each of the 45 national indicators is reported fully on the Scotland performs part of the Government website. It is updated frequently as new performance data on indicators become available. The up-to-date material that Mr McLetchie is looking for is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week on the Government’s website.
I am not sure where Mr McLetchie is encouraging me to go with this line of questioning. He is suggesting that when circumstances lead to the Government being unable to achieve one of its indicators, it should change the indicator and go off on to something else. My memory might be letting me down here, but I have a funny feeling that Mr McLetchie might have condemned some of my predecessors for changing targets when they were unable to achieve them. The national performance framework says, “Here is a desirable set of indicators that will measure progress towards the achievement of national outcomes.”
Regardless of the difference between the economic circumstances in 2007, when the performance framework was established, and the position in which we now find ourselves, it remains desirable—to highlight a national indicator—for us to halve the gap between our total research and development spending and the European Union average by 2011. Regardless of the change in circumstances, that is desirable. Another indicator is to increase the business start-up rate. My goodness, that is essential in the current context, and many of the Government’s initiatives are designed to support and encourage individuals who have lost employment to move into business development and entrepreneurship if they are able to do that. Another indicator is to grow exports at a faster average rate than growth in gross domestic product. One of the fundamentals of the Government’s economic recovery plan is to internationalise the performance of Scottish companies. One of our weaknesses is the fact that Scottish companies are not undertaking enough international business activity, so we want them to do more.
First, I will comment on the issue of whether targets are realistic, ambitious or pie in the sky. I make no apologies for being ambitious about what I want to achieve for Scotland. If you set a mundane target, you are likely to deliver an utterly pedestrian performance. We have established an ambitious set of indicators to deliver social and economic change and progress in Scotland, and I make no apology for that.
I was struck by the comments of Caroline Gardner, the deputy auditor general, who in oral evidence to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee said:
In your opening remarks, you said that single outcome agreements will produce better outcomes and better accountability and will respond to local priorities and reduce bureaucracy. However, the Accounts Commission report includes a whole page of concern and criticism. Further to David McLetchie’s questions about targets, I point out that paragraph 60 of the report highlights
Convener, you and I could probably sit here all morning trading paragraphs of Audit Scotland’s report for the Accounts Commission, “An overview of local government in Scotland 2009”. Another paragraph on the same page states:
On working with partners, the report says:
We could probably trade paragraphs. There is a full-page critique of the failings. It is disappointing to hear that you have not taken on board what is said about those.
When, in 2007, the Government set out the approach that it intended to take and the way of working that it intended to adopt, there was a certain amount of scepticism that we would be able to secure agreement around single outcome agreements, certainly within the timescale that I specified, whereby they were to be in force by April 2008. The concept of moving towards an outcome-based approach has been talked about in Scottish public services for many years.
I think that there has been an attitudinal change. We have created, or encouraged the creation of, a much more significant level of co-operation between public sector partners at the local level. To go back to my answer to Mr Tolson, if we consider significant issues and social changes such as the tackling of poverty or health inequalities, we all accept that no one public service organisation will be able to achieve those priorities. The imperative is therefore about maximising co-operation across different public sector organisations. That has perhaps been the most significant change in emphasis and attitude, because there is now a much greater willingness among local authorities and other public sector partners to focus on what they can achieve together rather than on what drives service design from their own organisational perspective. That has been a helpful development in the perspective of different public sector bodies, but it has had an implicit impact on the attitudes of local authorities.
As I said earlier, the report forms part of the discussion involving the groups that meet to monitor the approach to community planning partnerships. Audit Scotland is a partner with us in the process of developing the approach to single outcome agreements. In developing an agenda of radical change there will be areas where we need to concentrate on making improvements, and the Government will ensure that that is addressed in our discussions.
Good morning. First, I have a supplementary question about reporting back, which colleagues have asked about. The SOA for Dundee City Council states:
My next question is about the fairer Scotland fund. Ten single outcome agreements do not contain a statement on how fairer Scotland fund moneys will be used. A Scottish centre for regeneration report reveals concerns at the local level about the removal of ring fencing from those moneys in March this year. Is the cabinet secretary aware of those concerns, and how will he reassure the people who have them?
That monitoring already takes place as part of the reporting on single outcome agreement performance. That will give us the necessary information.
The mechanism for all that is contained in different elements of the current arrangements. Local authorities will go through the best-value process, which assesses the effectiveness and value for money of their service provision, and will, with their community planning partners, report on the achievement of outcomes. I remind the committee that single outcome agreements are now formulated as an expression of the direction and approach taken not just by local authorities but by all community planning partners and that, as a result, they bring in a wider dimension.
Let me look at it another way. National outcome 6 is:
I will raise a fundamental point, following on from our earlier discussion about local people’s lack of awareness of what single outcome agreements deliver for them. There is also the notion of all partners being publicly accountable—but not politically accountable—for the money that they spend and bring to the table. I understand from the guidelines for CPPs that that point was acknowledged and that a key development step was highlighted in the guidelines that would create an effective mechanism for joint accountability for SOAs, which could transfer to shared services arrangements.
I cannot give you a time in hours and minutes, but they are an active topic of discussion in my meetings and in those that my officials hold. Governance issues are given significant consideration when it comes to shared services, which is an area of activity that involves a range of players in the Government, local authorities, public authorities and non-departmental public bodies.
When will we be able to make those discussions more open to the people whom they affect, to the committee and to others who might be interested? When can we expect some open discussion of what I have described as a democratic deficit? When will we be able to find out about some of the work to create effective mechanisms for joint accountability?
I understand that that is the case in relation to new bodies in the future, but I am thinking more about the guidance that is already in place for community planning partnerships and how the guidance for single outcome agreements can
I am grateful for the get-out clause that Patricia Ferguson helpfully offered. Without being flippant in any way, I would say that the asks fall into two categories: those that can be delivered and those that cannot. As Patricia Ferguson will be aware, there are directors in the Scottish Government who are responsible for liaison with the community planning partnership. They have been the communication channel between the Government and community planning partnerships in trying to address some of those questions. Some of the asks are relatively straightforward to deliver, and a number of them will have been addressed. Others are more challenging, and some would require additional resources. I am in regular discussion with local authorities—collectively and individually—about their financial circumstances. As Patricia Ferguson will appreciate, satisfying those financial demands is never easy for me to do. However, we endeavour to address as many of those asks as possible.
The directors who interact with community planning partnerships meet collectively in the Government. They formulate an assessment for me of the various propositions that are received. Whether it is one partnership or a number of them that are asking for those things, open consideration is given to their questions. Where resources are involved, difficult challenges must be addressed. If procedural or operational issues are raised, or changes to policy streams are suggested that we could pursue in a relatively straightforward fashion, I give open consideration to them.
A number of my questions have already been asked. To return to community planning partnerships, how many of them are there and, following on from Patricia Ferguson’s question, how many directors in the Scottish Government oversee them.
There was talk that, instead of having each of the partnerships operate local authority-wide, some of the larger local authorities wanted to split them up to ensure that they concentrated on specific geographical areas. Given your response, however, I assume that each of the partnerships has been established around a local authority area. Is that the case?
I have a background in working with—some of your officials may have worked with—the new life for urban Scotland programme, which was established in four areas in 1988 under a previous Administration. You talked about community involvement and community partnership, but the reality for many communities—I am talking about the community not as in statutory bodies but as in people and residents in those areas—is that their expectations may not be met with regard to their engagement with and influence over what is delivered locally because, although the documentation refers to political accountability, for many people that political accountability currently comes only once every five years when local government elections are held.
Mr Wilson raises a significant issue. I want to give the clearest signal that ensuring that the public’s view and the public’s attitude and aspirations are incorporated into the thinking and decision making of the community is very important.
I am sorry to mention “An overview of local government in Scotland 2009” again, but that report refers to the same issue.
Previous
Attendance