Murray McVicar is staying with us for item 3, as he has been working with Richard Simpson on a proposal for external research on outcome-based budgeting. The paper has been circulated to members. Does either Murray or Richard want to make an opening statement?
Murray McVicar has done about 90 per cent of the work. We had a meeting and I drew up a rough schema, which we then analysed. The object is to distinguish between outputs and outcomes. We are used to getting a lot of announcements about outputs such as the number of new teachers or policemen. However, we want to get some outcomes into the budget, which is why we are undertaking this piece of research. There are two strands to the research. First, we need to find out what is currently happening by getting someone to examine "Investing in You" and "Making a Difference". We also need to consider time values, because one of the problems is that many outcomes will be longer term rather than immediate. I have a feeling from this committee and the Health and Community Care Committee that members of all parties want longer-term outcome objectives on which we can all agree.
Richard Simpson has explained the matter quite well. As we are keen to make the research as practical as possible, we need to analyse what has already been done and find out how practical outcome-based budgeting is. We should then identify where it could be applied in the budget process, if it is not already being applied, and come up with some practical proposals on that aspect. This will not be some airy-fairy, theoretical exercise; it is a good idea to find out where outcome budgeting is being used and how it can be applied in future. The state of the art is fairly primitive; there are not many specifics on the subject as far as Britain is concerned and our suggestion is to move in that direction.
Your pretty detailed proposal helpfully makes clear the practical application of the research. I particularly like the outline of the various stages.
If we can get the permission for it, I thoroughly recommend that we undertake this research as it will allow committees to work more efficiently. However, I have already lodged a parliamentary question about a concern relating to stage 3 of the research process. I know that, for example, some of the Scottish police forces are concerned that the same methods and diligence should be used in recording crime reports. That highlights a question that goes back to different Government departments and agencies, regardless of the subject. Are we applying common basic monitoring to every area, whether we are talking about hospitals, police forces or reported crime? We all want a drop in crime figures. However, is any drop in reported crime the result of correct reporting? Are we also considering crimes that are successfully prosecuted? That figure might vary according to the way in which the monitoring is carried out. I am not picking on police forces, as the issue can be raised for all public services. It is important that at some point we consider standardising the monitoring of the different public sectors in Scotland. Without that, it will be impossible to measure outcomes.
The data collection system is a problem. Of course, the best example is the changes in the collection of unemployment statistics that happened when Mr Davidson's party was in power.
We had better not get into politics.
I will not get into those 26 changes. However, the current data collection systems in all areas are quite problematic. We tend to ask for additional data instead of considering the data that have been collected. There should be a proper basis for data collection if we are going to examine long-term outcomes. It would be reasonable to include in the research some comment on the difficulties that might be faced in judging longer-term outcomes against a database that might be changing and on how we cope with such a variable.
The proposal is very good and I am happy to support it. People of my children's generation who are into serious management and all that stuff tell me that it is a truism to say that if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it and therefore you ignore it. Many of the best things in life cannot be measured, and I hope that the research will try to cover that aspect. It is not just a matter of motherhood and apple pie. If our education and social policies result in families operating better and being happier and in children being more cheerful at school and treating each other better, that might not be measurable in terms of highers and other examinations, but it is very important. I know it will be very difficult, but the researcher should not be bound only to things that are measurable.
A constant problem with research is finding out what are hard data and what are soft data. However, as a really soft example, it is possible to use properly conducted polls to find out about states of mind. We can test for whether families are feeling better and more cohesive. In health, some of the health boards conduct very good MORI polls not only on smoking levels, but on attitudes towards smoking, which provide both soft and hard data. As long as the measurement is relatively consistent, we can accurately judge the change even in soft data. We want the researcher to concentrate on such issues. What practical hard outcome data can be measured relatively easily, with current data provided? I also want to find out whether the committee could recommend some changes in data collection that might allow us to collect more soft data. However, that is getting close to utopia, and might be very difficult. The research should advise us on what is good, what is easy, what can be done immediately, what could possibly be done and what is too difficult.
That is right. Regardless of whether the data are hard or soft, the process must be robust and produce robust and justifiable outcome measures. The research will show whether the process contains many problems that we have not seen and whether it is more difficult than we think it is. It would be useful to know such information.
As I said, the proposal will go to the conveners liaison group on 12 June. If it is approved, we will have only one full meeting before the recess to discuss the matter. Murray, will you be able to make some suggestions before the summer recess about who might carry out the research, or is that too tight? I know that the report will not be produced until the end of the year, but we will not be back in session until the beginning of September.
Assuming that the conveners liaison group approves the proposal on 12 June, it will then go through the procurement process and people will be invited to bid in a closed tender process. We will then have to give them a fair amount of time to respond because so many people will be on holiday.
So nothing can really begin until after the summer recess.
I would not think so.
If you will not be able to appoint anyone until September, are the target dates not a little bit ambitious?
We are aiming for the final research to be completed by February, with a provisional report on stage 1 by Christmas. That allows four months.
Well, nearer three months. Will we receive a report before the research begins?
Yes, we will report back to the committee. A group of officials in the Parliament—including me, the research assessor in the Scottish Parliament information centre, a clerk and someone from the procurement office—will choose people to submit tenders and allocate the contract. I will then report back to the committee on who has been successful. We have laid down a strict series of criteria.
Sure. I was just seeking clarification about meeting the time scale you have set out. However, if you are confident that it can be done within that—
If we are appointing staff to do the research, the timetable might pose a problem. However, might it be possible to circumvent that situation by allowing the convener and a representative from each party to approve the researcher during the recess instead of having to wait for a formal committee decision?
I would be quite happy with that. However, the problem is the availability of applicants during the recess. If the invitations to tender are being sent out in the middle of June, we should catch them before they disappear for the summer.
I would not expect the people applying for the tender to reply until the end of July. We have to give them time to respond. The contract will be awarded in the recess. The position will be allocated according to a strict process carried out by a team of Parliament staff. No MSP has ever been involved in that process.
If things can be done before we reconvene after the recess, so much the better, because there will be a better chance of meeting the deadlines.
Meeting continued in private until 12:15.
Previous
Budget Process 2002-03